Maunz v. Washington County Justice Center et al

Filing 14

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Fourth Amended Application; denying as moot 10 MOTION for Court Docket Sheet and Investigation into Criminal Charges; denying 13 pt.1) Amended MOTION/Petition to Dismiss the Colo. Attorney General's Office (on case no. 14-cv-02344-BNB) as Defendant and add the Colorado Dept. of Corrections as Defendant (same case no.)(pt.2) Enlargement, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 9/19/2014.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02032-BNB
WILLIAM ALAN MAUNZ,
Applicant,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER (WCJC),
LARRY KOONTZ, Sheriff, and
COLO. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (CDOC), et al.,
Respondents.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, William Alan Maunz, filed pro se on August 5, 2014, an Application for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 5) contending he was
arrested, apparently for violating the conditions of his parole, and that he was being
detained illegally without due process of law. Mr. Maunz was an inmate at the
Washington County Justice Center in Akron, Colorado, when he initiated this action. On
September 16, 2014, Mr. Maunz filed a notice of change of address (ECF No. 12)
stating that he currently is housed at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center
following revocation of his parole.
On August 8, 2014, the court entered an order directing Mr. Maunz to file an
amended application if he wishes to pursue any federal constitutional claims in this
action. The court noted that the application was deficient because Mr. Maunz named
one or more improper Respondents, his claims properly are asserted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and he failed to provide specific factual
allegations that demonstrate his federal constitutional rights have been violated and that
he is entitled to habeas corpus relief.
On August 13, 2014, Mr. Maunz filed as his first amended application a
document titled “Amended Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241)” (ECF
No. 8). On August 21, 2014, Mr. Maunz filed as his second amended application a
“Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (ECF No. 9). Neither the
first nor the second amended applications is on the proper, court-approved form. On
September 9, 2014, Mr. Maunz filed on the proper form as his third amended
application an “Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241”
(ECF No. 11). Because the District of Colorado local civil rules require unrepresented
prisoners to use only court-approved forms, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c) (“[i]f not filed
electronically, an unrepresented prisoner or party shall use the forms and procedures
posted on the court’s website”), and because an amended pleading supercedes prior
pleadings, see Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007), the court will
consider only the third amended application (ECF No. 11), filed by Mr. Maunz on
September 9, 2014.
The court must construe the third amended application liberally because Mr.
Maunz 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. For the
reasons stated below, Mr. Maunz will be ordered to file a fourth amended application if
he wishes to pursue any federal constitutional claims in this action.
2

The third amended application remains deficient for two reasons. 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. Maunz alleges that he currently is incarcerated at the Denver
Reception and Diagnostic Center. Therefore, he should name as Respondent only his
custodian at that facility.
The third amended application also is deficient because Mr. Maunz fails to
provide specific factual allegations in support of his federal constitutional claims that
demonstrate he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Mr. Maunz makes only vague and
conclusory allegations that he was detained illegally at the Washington County Justice
Center and that his parole was revoked illegally. Because Mr. Maunz alleges that his
parole has been revoked, it appears that any claim he is asserting regarding his
confinement at the Washington County Justice Center prior to the revocation of his
parole now is moot. Regarding the revocation of his parole, Mr. Maunz fails to provide a
clear statement of any claim that his federal constitutional rights were violated in
connection with those proceedings. 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).
Mr. Maunz will be given one final opportunity to file an amended pleading that
names a proper Respondent and that clarifies the claims he is asserting. To reiterate,
habeas corpus relief is warranted only if Mr. Maunz “is in custody in violation of the
3

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 United
States District Courts, which apply to this habeas corpus action pursuant to § 2241, Mr.
Maunz must provide specific factual allegations in support of the 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).
Finally, Mr. Maunz has filed two other motions that remain pending. On
September 4, 2014, Mr. Maunz filed a “Petition/Motion for court docket sheet case no.
14-cv-02032 BNB and investigation into criminal charges for obstruction of
correspondence, delay & destruction of mail Title 18 § 1702, Title 18 § 1703, at
Washington County Justice Center (Mail)” (ECF No. 10). That motion will be denied as
moot because Mr. Maunz no longer is being held at the Washington County Justice
Center. The second motion, which was filed on September 16, 2014, is titled “(pt. 1)
amended motion/petition to dismiss the Colo. Attorney General’s Office (on case no 14cv-02344, BNB) as Defendant and add the Colorado Dept. of Corrections as Defendant
(same case no.) (pt. 2) Enlargement” (ECF No. 13). That motion also will be denied.
Any request for relief Mr. Maunz seeks with respect to case number 14-cv-02344-BNB
4

must be made in that case. Mr. Maunz may not include in a single motion multiple
requests applicable to different cases. To the extent Mr. Maunz is requesting an
enlargement of time in this action, he fails to explain the purpose for which he is seeking
an extension of time. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Mr. Maunz
file a fourth amended application on the proper form that names a proper Respondent
and that clarifies the claims he is asserting in this action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Maunz 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. Maunz fails within the time allowed to file a
fourth amended application as directed, the action will be dismissed without further
notice. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the “Petition/Motion for court docket sheet case no.
14-cv-02032 BNB and investigation into criminal charges for obstruction of
correspondence, delay & destruction of mail Title 18 § 1702, Title 18 § 1703, at
Washington County Justice Center (Mail)” (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as moot and the
motion titled “(pt. 1) amended motion/petition to dismiss the Colo. Attorney General’s
Office (on case no 14-cv-02344, BNB) as Defendant and add the Colorado Dept. of
Corrections as Defendant (same case no.) (pt. 2) Enlargement” (ECF No. 13) is
DENIED.

5

DATED September 19, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

6