Eden v. Cozza-Rhodes

Filing 14

ORDER to File Preliminary Response, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 1/27/15. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03014-GPG
CASEY D. EDEN,
Applicant,
v.
T. COZZA-RHODES,
Respondent.

ORDER TO FILE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE

Applicant Casey D. Eden currently is detained at the Sedgwick County Detention
Facility in Wichita, Kansas. Applicant initiated this action by filing pro se an Application
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, while he was incarcerated at
the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. He has been granted leave to
proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application in this case and
pursuant to Keck v. Hartley, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Colo. 2008), the Court has
determined that a limited Preliminary Response is appropriate. Respondent is directed
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing the affirmative
defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies with respect to the execution of his
sentence. If Respondent does not intend to raise this affirmative defense, Respondent
must notify the Court of that decision in the Preliminary Response. Respondent may
not file a dispositive motion as a Preliminary Response, or an Answer, or otherwise

address the merits of the claims in response to this Order.
In support of the Preliminary Response, Respondent should attach as exhibits all
relevant portions of the administrative record, including but not limited to copies of all
documents demonstrating whether Applicant has exhausted administrative remedies.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this Order
Respondent shall file a Preliminary Response that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the filing of the
Preliminary Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative
defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Respondent must notify the Court of
that decision in the Preliminary Response.
Dated: January 27, 2015
BY THE COURT:
s/Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

2