Hayter v. Denham

Filing 11

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 7/03/2014. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01540-BNB
DARWIN HAYTER,
Applicant,
v.
DEBORAH DENHAM – Warden FCI Englewood,
Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Darwin Hayter, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons at the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood, Colorado. Mr. Hayter has
filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(ECF No. 1) challenging a decision denying him placement in a halfway house. He
requests as relief in the application to be released immediately to a halfway house in
Denver, Colorado.
The court must construe the application liberally because Mr. Hayter 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. Mr. Hayter will be ordered to
file an amended application if he wishes to pursue any habeas corpus claims in this
action.
The application is deficient because Mr. Hayter fails to provide a clear statement

of the claims he is asserting. In particular, Mr. Hayter fails to allege specific facts that
demonstrate his federal constitutional rights have been violated. Although the court
must construe the 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. Hayter “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. Hayter 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
constitutional violations are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action. See Ruark v.
Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
Finally, the court notes that Mr. Hayter has filed other documents in this action in
which he asserts claims for damages against various individuals who allegedly have
violated his rights in connection with the decision denying him placement in a halfway
house. (See ECF Nos. 4, 7, & 9.) Mr. Hayter may not pursue his claims for damages in
this action because “[t]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody
2

upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure
release from illegal custody.” See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). If
Mr. Hayter wishes to pursue any claims for damages, he must do so in a separate civil
rights action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Mr. Hayter
file an amended application that clarifies the federal constitutional habeas corpus claims
he is asserting. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hayter 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. Hayter fails within the time allowed to file an
amended application that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.
DATED July 3, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

3