Thornton v. Goodrich et al

Filing 5

ORDER to File Pre-Answer Response, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 3/12/2015. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00432-GPG
RICHARD THOMAS,
Applicant,
v.
BARRY GOODRICH, Warden, BCCF; and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents.

ORDER TO FILE PRE-ANSWER RESPONSE

Applicant, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing an Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence in
Douglas County District Court Case No. 11cr145.
As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this case, the Court has determined that a limited
Pre-Answer Response is appropriate. Respondent The Attorney General of the State of
Colorado is directed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts and to Denson v. Abbott, 554 F.Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Colo.
2008), to file a Pre-Answer Response addressing the affirmative defenses of timeliness
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and/or exhaustion/procedural default of state court remedies
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). If Respondent does not intend to raise either of these
affirmative defenses, he must notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer
Response.
In support of the Pre-Answer Response, Respondent should attach as exhibits all
relevant portions of the state court record, including but not limited to copies of all
documents demonstrating whether this action is filed in a timely manner and/or whether

Applicant has exhausted state court remedies and whether the claims have been
procedurally defaulted.
Applicant may reply to the Pre-Answer Response and provide any information that
might be relevant to the one-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and/or the
exhaustion of state court remedies. Applicant should include any information relevant to
equitable tolling, specifically as to whether he has pursued his claims diligently and
whether some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from filing a timely 28 U.S.C. §
2254 action in this Court, and any information relevant to overcoming a procedural default,
such as cause and prejudice or the existence of a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this Order Respondent
The Attorney General of the State of Colorado shall file a Pre-Answer Response that
complies with this Order and addresses exhaustion, timeliness, procedural default and
jurisdictional issues. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the filing of the PreAnswer Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent The Attorney General of the State of
Colorado does not intend to raise either of the affirmative defenses of timeliness or
exhaustion/procedural default of state court remedies, he must notify the Court of that
decision in the Pre-Answer Response.
Dated: March 12, 2015
BY THE COURT:
s/Gorgon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

2