Garcia v. Trani et al

Filing 13

ORDER Directing Applicant To File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 05/30/14. (nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00918-BNB
MICHAEL GARCIA,
Applicant,
v.
TRAVIS TRANI, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Michael Garcia, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Centennial Correctional Facility in Cañon City,
Colorado. Applicant initiated this action by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Application was deficient because
Applicant failed to identify any claims on the form. Applicant filed a second Application
on April 25, 2014, and stated a claim and supporting facts, but he failed to sign and date
the Application. The Court directed Applicant to submit a third Application, which he did
on May 16, 2014. The Court then granted Applicant leave to proceed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
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.

The Court has reviewed the Application that Applicant submitted on May 16,
2014, and finds again that the Application is deficient. Applicant signed and dated the
third Application, but he failed to state supporting facts for the two claims that he
identified. Applicant titles his claims as “Adamatic Realice” and “Readuction” and has
written “not sure” as the supporting facts for each claim.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires that Mr. Castillo go beyond notice pleading. See Blackledge v. Allison,
431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977). 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 identify the constitutional
violation in each claim he seeks to raise and state the specific facts to support the
alleged violation.
The Amended Application also does not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. 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. Although Applicant
has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, he will be given an opportunity to file an
2

Amended Application.
The Court, therefore, will direct Applicant to file an Amended Application that
complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and that identifies the constitutional
violation in each claim he seeks to raise and states the specific facts to support the
alleged violation. Applicant must present his claims in a manageable format that allows
the Court and Respondents to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to
respond to those claims. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order Applicant shall
file an Amended Application that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant shall obtain the Court-approved 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 Application 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 Applicant fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Application as directed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED May 30, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3