Burgess v. Oliver et al
ORDER Directing Respondent to File Preliminary Response and DENYING as unnecessary 17 Motion for Order Re: Consent, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 04/10/14.(nmarb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03297-BNB
JOHN C. OLIVER,
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
Applicant, Clinton T. Eldridge, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons who was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, High Security, in
Florence, Colorado, when he initiated the instant action. He since has informed the
Court that he is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary – Special Management
Unit (SMU), in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. See ECF No. 12.
As part of the preliminary consideration in this case of the amended Application
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on February 10, 2014
(ECF No. 11), and pursuant to Redmon v. Wiley, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (D. Colo. 2008),
the Court has determined that a limited Preliminary Response is appropriate.
Respondent is directed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing
the affirmative defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies. If Respondent does
not intend to raise this affirmative defense, Respondent must notify the Court of that
decision in the Preliminary Response. Respondent may not file a dispositive motion as
a Preliminary Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address the merits of the claims in
response to this Order.
In support of the Preliminary Response, Respondent should attach as exhibits
copies of any administrative grievances Applicant has filed raising the issues asserted in
the Application, as well as any responses to those grievances. Applicant may reply to
the Preliminary Response and provide any information that might be relevant to his
efforts to exhaust administrative remedies.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order
Respondent shall file a Preliminary Response that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the
Preliminary Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative
defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Respondent must notify the Court of
that decision in the Preliminary Response. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion titled “Motion for Order Re Consent” filed
on April 9, 2014 (ECF No. 17) is denied as unnecessary.
DATED April 10, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?