Laxson v. Lingreg et al

Filing 10

ORDER the Clerk of the Court commence a separate civil action and file in the new civil action the Prisoner Complaint 9 tendered to the court on 6/20/2014, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/26/2014. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01603-BNB
LLOYD HARVEY LAXSON,
Applicant,
v.
LINGREG,
BRUNELL, and
TIME COMP.
Respondents.

ORDER

Applicant, Lloyd Harvey Laxson, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections (DOC). Mr. Laxson 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) and
a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in
a Habeas Corpus Action (ECF No. 3). On June 9, 2014, the court granted Mr. Laxson
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On June 10, 2014,
Mr. Laxson was ordered to file an amended application that clarifies the federal
constitutional claims he is asserting in this habeas corpus action. Mr. Laxson was
advised that, to the extent he also seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement
with respect to his medical treatment, he must raise the medical treatment claims in a
separate civil action because conditions of confinement claims may not be raised in a
habeas corpus action.

On June 20, 2014, Mr. Laxson filed an amended Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 7) and an amended Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus
Action (ECF No. 8). Mr. Laxson also tendered to the court using the civil action number
for this habeas corpus action a Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 9) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claiming he is being denied adequate medical treatment.
The Court must construe the papers submitted by Mr. Laxson liberally because
he 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.
As Mr. Laxson previously was advised, he may not pursue his medical treatment
claims in a habeas corpus action. See Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035
(10th Cir. 2012) (discussing distinction between habeas corpus claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and conditions of confinement claims raised in civil rights actions).
Therefore, the Prisoner Complaint will not be filed in this action. Instead, the clerk of the
court will be directed to commence a new civil action and file the tendered Prisoner
Complaint in the new civil action. The new civil action will be assigned a separate case
number. Any papers Mr. Laxson submits to the court regarding his habeas corpus
claims should be identified with the civil action number for this habeas corpus action.
Any papers Mr. Laxson submits to the court regarding his medical treatment claims
should be identified with the civil action number that will be assigned to the new civil
action. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court commence a separate civil action and file
2

in the new civil action the Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 9) tendered to the court on June
20, 2014. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign the new civil action to
the pro se docket for initial review.
DATED June 26, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3