Young v. Oliver
ORDER on Motions; 6 Motion to Stay and 11 Motion to Stay are DENIED. 13 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED. 15 Motion seeking a thirty-day extension of time in which to respond to the order to show cause is GRANTED, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/3/14.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01075-BNB
JOHN OLIVER (Warden),
ORDER ON MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on a number of motions filed by Applicant,
Anthony Young, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the
United States Penitentiary, High Security, in Florence, Colorado.
The Court must construe Mr. Young’s filings liberally because he 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.
In his motion to stay (ECF No. 6) filed on April 28, 2014, and motion to stay (ECF
No. 11) filed on May 12, 2014, Mr. Young asks not to be transferred from the Court’s
jurisdiction during the pendency of this action. “It is well established that jurisdiction
attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer
of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.” Santillanes v. United States
Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S.
188 (1948) (other case citations omitted)). Therefore, this Court retains jurisdiction over
Mr. Young’s § 2241 application until disposition, even if he himself is transferred to
another prison facility. The motions to stay (ECF Nos. 6 and 11) will be denied.
The motion titled “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 13)
that Applicant filed on May 22, 2014, also will be denied. Mr. Young was informed in
the order to show cause (ECF No. 10) filed on May 6, 2014, that he may pursue habeas
corpus claims challenging the execution of his sentence in the instant § 2241 action. If
he intends to assert civil rights claims challenging the conditions of his confinement,
however, he must file a separate civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The motion to file an
amended complaint in the instant action, therefore, will be denied.
The motion (ECF No. 15) filed on May 29, 2014, seeking a thirty-day extension of
time in which to respond to the order to show cause will be granted. Applicant will be
allowed thirty days from the date of this order in which to show cause as directed in the
May 29 order. Failure to do so within the time allowed may result in the denial of the
habeas corpus application and dismissal of the instant action without further notice.
Applicant mentions in the letter (ECF No. 16) filed on June 2, 2014, that there
may be a possible change of his address due to a future transfer to a different prison
facility. Applicant must file a notice of change of address pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(d)
of the Local Civil Rules of Practice for this Court within five days after any change of
address to a new prison facility. His address will not be changed at this time based on
the June 2 letter.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion to stay (ECF Nos. 6) filed on April 28, 2014, and the
motion to stay (ECF No. 11) he filed on May 12, 2014, are denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint”
(ECF No. 13) filed on May 22, 2014, is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion (ECF No. 15) filed on May 29, 2014,
seeking a thirty-day extension of time in which to respond to the order to show cause is
granted. Applicant may have thirty days from the date of this order in which to show
cause as directed in the May 29 order. Failure to do so within the time allowed may
result in the denial of the habeas corpus application and dismissal of the instant action
without further notice.
DATED June 3, 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?