Hill v. Oliver

Filing 13

ORDER Directing Applicant To File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 03/11/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-03236-BNB
HOWARD L. HILL, II
Applicant,
v.
J. OLIVER,
Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Howard L. Hill, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Florence High. On December
26, 2013, Mr. Hill filed pro se an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 5) on the Court-approved form. Mr. Hill has paid the $5.00
filing fee.
The Court must construe the habeas corpus application liberally because Mr. Hill
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, Mr. Hill
will be ordered to file an amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 on the proper, Court-approved form.
The application Mr. Hill submitted to the Court on December 26, 2013, is vague
and conclusory. Mr. Hill simply asserts that his due process rights were violated

because he “was wrongfully found guilty by [disciplinary hearing officer] with no more
‘evidence’ than staff’s allegation that I’d committed the prohibited act.” Mr. Hill provides
no supporting facts for his claim.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to applications for habeas corpus
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S.
257, 269 (1978); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 969-70 (10th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on
clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Vague or unintelligible pleadings violate
the requirements of Rule 8.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Section 2254 Rules), Mr. Hill
must "specify all [available] grounds for relief" and he must "state the facts supporting
each ground." Rule 1(b) of the Section 2254 Rules applies those rules to the instant
action. These habeas corpus rules are more demanding than the rules applicable to
ordinary civil actions, which require only notice pleading. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.
644, 655 (2005). Naked allegations of constitutional violations are not cognizable. See
Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Therefore, the
amended application Mr. Hill will be directed to file must allege in a clear and concise
manner both the § 2241 claim he seeks to raise and the specific facts to support his
2

asserted claim. Claims raised in separate attachments, amendments, supplements,
motions, or other documents not included in the amended application will not be
considered.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this order Applicant,
Howard Hill, file an amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hill shall obtain the Court-approved form for filing
an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (with the
assistance of his case manager or the facility’s legal assistant), along with the
applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov, and shall use that form in submitting
the amended application. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Hill fails within the time allowed to file an
amended application as directed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED March 11, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3