Crownhart v. Muller et al

Filing 4

ORDER Of Dismissal. The Application is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated above. The Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is denied as moot. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. By Judge Christine M. Arguello for Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/15/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01927-BNB
EARL J. CROWNHART,
Applicant,
v.
CHRISTAIN MULLER, and
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, The Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Earl J. Crownhart, currently is confined at the Grand Junction Regional
Center in Grand Junction, Colorado. Mr. Crownhart, acting pro se, has submitted to the
Court an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas
Action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the action.
Mr. Crownhart has been permanently enjoined from filing any civil actions in this
Court in which he is the proponent of a claim without representation of an attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado unless he first obtains leave of Court by a
judicial officer to proceed pro se in the action. See Crownhart v. Suthers, et al., No. 13cv-00959-LTB at ECF No. 5 (D. Colo. June 14, 2013). The pleading will be dismissed if
a judicial officer finds Mr. Crownhart’s pleadings to be without merit, repetitive, frivolous,
or inconsistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Id.
Mr. Crownhart’s claims fail to meet the requirements set forth under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to applications for habeas corpus

relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S.
257, 269 (1978); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 969-70 (10th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .”
Mr. Crownhart does not include a short and plain statement showing that he is
entitled to relief as required pursuant to Rule 8. On Page Two of the Application, Mr.
Crownhart identifies the state court case in question as Case No. 2013MH207. Mr.
Crownhart, however, fails to respond to the questions regarding the specifics of Case
No. 2013MH207, and whether he has exhausted his state court remedies. Mr.
Crownhart appears to be challenging his current placement at the Grand Junction
Regional Center, which was at issue in Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 12-cv-03053-LTB (D.
Colo. May 21, 2013). In Case No. 12-cv-03053-LTB, the Court dismissed the action for
failure to exhaust state court remedies concerning his current placement. Nothing Mr.
Crownhart has asserted in the Application demonstrates he has exhausted his state
court remedies with respect to his current placement. The Court, therefore, will dismiss
the action.
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 is denied
for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr.
Crownhart files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or
file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that the Application is denied and the action is dismissed without
prejudice for the reasons stated above. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is denied as moot. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 15th 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