Martinez v. Archuleta et al

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/21/2014. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01390-BNB
MIGUEL R. MARTINEZ,
Applicant,
v.
WARDEN LOU ARCHULETA, FCF, and
JOHN W. SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Miguel R. Martinez, filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court must construe the application liberally
because Mr. Martinez 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. Martinez will be ordered to file an amended
application if he wishes to pursue any claims in this action.
The application is deficient because Mr. Martinez fails to provide a clear
statement of the claims he is asserting in this action. First, it is not clear whether the
claims Mr. Martinez is asserting are federal constitutional claims. Review under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 is limited to alleged violations of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);
Davis v. Workman, 695 F.3d 1060, 1078 (10th Cir. 2012). In addition, even assuming
Mr. Martinez is asserting federal constitutional claims, he fails to allege specific facts in

support of each claim showing that his federal constitutional rights have been violated.
For these reasons, Mr. Martinez must file an amended application. Pursuant to
Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, Mr. Martinez must identify the specific federal constitutional
claims he is asserting and the specific factual allegations that support each asserted
claim. 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 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 Mr. Martinez file an amended application that complies with this
order within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Martinez shall obtain the court-approved
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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. Martinez fails to file an amended application
that complies with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.

2

DATED May 21, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3