Trujillo v. Archuleta et al
Filing
3
ORDER to File Pre-Answer Response, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 5/22/15. (morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-1061-GPG
JOHN TRUJILLO,
Applicant,
v.
LOU ARCHULETA, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, The
Respondents.
ORDER TO FILE PRE-ANSWER RESPONSE
As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) filed on May 20, 2015, in this action
and pursuant to Denson v. Abbott, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Colo. 2008), the Court has
determined that a limited Pre-Answer Response is appropriate. Respondents are
directed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts to file a Pre-Answer Response limited to addressing the
affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), successiveness,
exhaustion of state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and/or procedural
default. In particular, Respondents should address the issue of the effect of Martinez v.
Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) as discussed in the Application. If Respondents do not
intend to raise any of these affirmative defenses, Respondents must notify the Court of
that decision in the Pre-Answer Response. Respondents may not file a dispositive
motion as the Pre-Answer Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address the merits of
the claims in response to this Order.
In support of the Pre-Answer Response, Respondents should attach as exhibits
all relevant portions of the state court record.
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),
successive petitions, exhaustion of state court remedies, procedural default and
application of Martinez. Applicant also should include 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. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order
Respondents shall file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the
Pre-Answer Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondents do not intend to raise either of the
affirmative defenses of timeliness or exhaustion of state court remedies, Respondents
must notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response.
DATED May 22, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?