Hayter v. Denham

Filing 15

ORDER denying 13 Ex Parte Motion to Void Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer's Order Directing Applicant to File Amended Application Dated July 3, 2014 by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/21/14.(dkals, )

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

This matter is before the Court on the Ex Parte Motion to Void Magistrate Judge
Craig B. Shaffer’s Order Directing Applicant to File Amended Application Dated July 3,
2014 (ECF No. 13). The motion was filed pro se by Applicant, Darwin Hayter, on July
15, 2014. The Court construes the motion as an objection to the referenced order. For
the reasons discussed below, the objection will be overruled.
Mr. Hayter 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) challenging a decision denying him
placement in a halfway house. On July 3, 2014, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
entered an order (ECF No. 11) directing Mr. Hayter to file an amended application that
clarifies the federal constitutional claims he is asserting. Mr. Hayter objects to
Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s order for three reasons. He contends, first, that a magistrate
judge is not an Article III judge and lacks authority to enter orders in this action; second,
that the order cites rules and authorities not applicable to a habeas corpus action

pursuant to § 2241; and, third, that Magistrate Judge Shaffer should not enter an order
in an action assigned to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. Notably, Mr. Hayter does
not object to Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s substantive determination that the application
does not provide a clear statement of the constitutional claims being asserted.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) a judge may reconsider any pretrial matter
designated to a magistrate judge to hear and determine where it has been shown that
the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court has
reviewed the file and finds that Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s order directing Applicant to
file an amended application is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The local civil
rules for the District of Colorado authorize review of prisoner pleadings by a magistrate
judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b); D.C.COLO.LCivR 1.1(e). Furthermore, the rules
and authorities cited by Magistrate Judge Shaffer regarding the heightened pleading
requirements in a habeas corpus action are applicable to this habeas corpus action
pursuant to § 2241. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection will be overruled. Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that the “Ex Parte Motion to Void Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer’s
Order Directing Applicant to File Amended Application Dated July 3, 2014” (ECF No. 13)
is denied and Applicant’s objections are overruled.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

21st

day of

July

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Christine M. Arguello
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge, for
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3