Bruce v. Berkebile

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/18/2013. (skl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02493-BNB
ANTOINE BRUCE,
Applicant,
v.
DAVID BERKEBILE,
Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Antoine Bruce, is a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau
of Prisons who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Florence,
Colorado. Applicant, acting pro se, filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court must construe the Application liberally
because Applicant is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court, however,
should not act as a pro se litigant’s advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the
reasons stated below, Applicant will be ordered to file an Amended Application.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires that Mr. Young go beyond notice pleading. See Blackledge v. Allison,
431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241
actions. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 1(b). Naked allegations of
constitutional violations devoid of factual support are not cognizable in a federal habeas
action. See Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

Applicant must allege on the Court-approved form both the claims he seeks to
raise and the specific facts to support each asserted claim. The Court has reviewed the
Application submitted on September 12, 2013, and finds that it is deficient. Applicant
fails to identify the incident report number for each disciplinary action that he is
challenging. Therefore, Applicant will be ordered to file an Amended Application, on a
Court-approved form, that includes each incident report number and states how his
rights were violated in each of the associated disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order Applicant file an
Amended Application that complies with the Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant shall obtain the Court-approved form used
in filing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 actions (with the assistance of his case manager or the
facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at
www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Applicant fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Application, as directed above, the action will be dismissed without further
notice.
DATED September 18, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2