Laxson v. Lingreg et al

Filing 6

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 6/10/14. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

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

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Lloyd Harvey Laxson, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility in Buena Vista,
Colorado. Mr. Laxson has filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) making vague and conclusory allegations
regarding the computation of his sentence and medical treatment.
The court must construe the application liberally because Mr. Laxson 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. Laxson will be ordered to
file an amended application if he wishes to pursue any habeas corpus claims in this
action.
The application is deficient. First, the law is well-established that the only proper
respondent to a habeas corpus action is the applicant’s custodian. See 28 U.S.C. §

2242; Rules 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts; Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 1995). Mr. Laxson alleges that
he is incarcerated at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. Therefore, the only proper
Respondent is the warden of that facility.
The application also is deficient because Mr. Laxson fails to provide a clear
statement of his claims. To the extent Mr. Laxson is challenging the conditions of his
confinement with respect to the medical treatment he is receiving while incarcerated, he
may not raise those claims in this 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). Mr. Laxson must raise any medical treatment claims in a separate civil
rights action if he wishes to pursue those claims in federal court.
With respect to his vague and conclusory allegations regarding the computation
of his sentence, Mr. Laxson fails to provide a clear statement of the claims he is
asserting. In particular, Mr. Laxson fails to explain why he believes his sentence has
not been computed correctly and how 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. Laxson “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
2

United States District Courts, which apply to this habeas corpus action pursuant to §
2241, Mr. Laxson 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). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Mr.
Laxson file an amended application that names a proper Respondent and that clarifies
the federal constitutional habeas corpus claims he is asserting. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Laxson 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. Laxson fails within the time allowed to file an
amended application that complies with this order, the action will be dismissed without
further notice.

3

DATED June 10, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

4