Briggs v. Strong

Filing 9

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Second Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 03/17/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00626-BNB
DERICK W. BRIGGS,
Applicant,
v.
LAURIE L. STRONG,
Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE SECOND AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Derick W. Briggs, is an inmate at the Denver County Jail in Denver,
Colorado. Mr. Briggs initiated this action by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) that was not signed. On
March 14, 2014, Mr. Briggs filed an amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 5) that is signed. Mr. Briggs contends his
constitutional rights are violated because his parole officer refuses to lift a parole hold.
The court must construe the amended application liberally because Mr. Briggs is
not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the court should not be
an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, Mr. Briggs will be ordered to file a second amended application if he wishes to
pursue his federal constitutional claims in this action.
The amended application is deficient. First, the law is well-established that the

only proper respondent to a habeas corpus action is the applicant’s custodian. See 28
U.S.C. § 2242; Rules 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts; Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 1995). Mr. Briggs
alleges that he currently is incarcerated at the Denver County Jail. Therefore, he should
name as a Respondent his custodian at that facility.
The amended application also is deficient because Mr. Briggs fails to provide
specific factual allegations in support of his claims that demonstrate his constitutional
rights have been violated and that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Although the
court must construe the amended application liberally, “the court cannot take on the
responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and
searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840
(10th Cir. 2005).
Habeas corpus relief is warranted only if Mr. Briggs “is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Pursuant to Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, which apply to this habeas corpus action pursuant to §
2241, Mr. Briggs must provide specific factual allegations in support of the federal
constitutional claims he is asserting. 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). “A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand
that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in
determining whether the State should be ordered to ‘show cause why the writ should
not be granted.’” Id. at 656 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Naked allegations of
2

constitutional violations are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action. See Ruark v.
Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Mr. Briggs
file a second amended application that names a proper Respondent and that clarifies
the claims he is asserting in this action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Briggs shall obtain the court-approved Application
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form (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 Mr. Briggs fails within the time allowed to file a
second amended application as directed, the action will be dismissed without further
notice.
DATED March 17, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3