Griffin v. Officer Serial #506047

Filing 5

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/19/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01903-BNB

ARTHUR JAMES GRIFFIN JR.,
Applicant,
v.
WITNESS: BOOKING OFFICER, Serial #506047, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Arthur James Griffin, Jr., is detained at the Denver County Jail in
Denver, Colorado. On July 8, 2014, Applicant filed pro se an Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for
Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After review of the Application,
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order on July 9, 2014, directing Applicant
to cure noted deficiencies. First, Magistrate Judge Boland found Applicant’s claims
more properly are filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and that he should submit the
claims on a Court-approved form used in filing § 2241 actions. Magistrate Judge
Boland also directed Applicant to provide a statement of his claims and the facts
supporting each claim on Pages Two through Four of the Application form. Finally,
Applicant was directed to submit an account statement that is certified.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires he go beyond notice pleading, see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,

75 n.7 (1977), and that naked allegations of constitutional violations devoid of factual
support are not cognizable in a federal habeas action, see Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d
318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases applies the rules to habeas corpus petitions other than § 2254 actions.
Consistent with Rule 4, Applicant was directed to state his claims and supporting
facts on a Court-approved form. The Court finds Magistrate Judge Boland correctly
determined that the Application was deficient and that in order to cure the deficiency
Applicant must submit a new Application that states his claims and supporting facts on a
Court-approved from used when filing a § 2241 action.
Applicant has failed to respond to the July 9, 2014 Order. As a result, he has
failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Boland’s directives within the time allowed.
Therefore, the action will be dismissed.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status will be
denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Applicant files a notice of appeal he must pay the full $505 appellate filing fee
or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Application is denied and the action is dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure deficiencies and for failure
to prosecute. It is

2

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

19th

day of

August

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3