Owens v. Warden, Fremont Correctional Facility et al
ORDER denying 23 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 24 request for the state court record, and granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/30/16.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01383-LTB
WARDEN, Fremont Correctional Facility, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
At issue is the AMotion to Provide Applicant with Copy of the State Record,@ ECF
No. 24, filed on March 28, 2016. Applicant requests the state court record so that he
may Ashow where clear constitutional error has occurred and support his claims for
habeas relief. See ECF No. 24. Applicant also asks for appointment of counsel.
Applicant fails to assert how his request is related to any specific claim for relief.
AA habeas proceeding is not a fishing expedition.@ See Teti v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50, 60
(1st Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1287 (2008). The request is broad and general,
lacks the specificity to support a finding of good cause, and, therefore, will be denied.
Respondents also have filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, ECF
No. 25. The Motion will be granted. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Applicant=s request for the state court record, ECF No. 24, is
denied for lack of specificity. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant=s Motion for Appointment of Counsel,@ ECF
No. 23, is denied as premature. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents= Motion for Extension of Time to File
Answer, ECF No. 25, is granted. Respondents shall have up to and including May 2,
2016, to file an Answer. No further extension will be granted without the showing of just
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?