Sharon v. People of the State of Colorado, The et al
Filing
19
ORDER to File Pre-Answer Response re: 17 Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Todd Brian Sharon, by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 12/28/2015. (cthom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01971-GPG
TODD BRIAN SHARON,
Applicant,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director of CDOC,
JASON LENGERICH, Warden, Buena Vista Correctional Facility, and
CYNTHIA COFFMAN, Colorado Attorney General,
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. 17, filed on December 24, 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) and/or
exhaustion of state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(b)(1)(A). If Respondents do
not intend to raise either 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.
1
In support of the Pre-Answer Response, Respondents 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.
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 address equitable tolling,
specifically if he has pursued his claims diligently and if some extraordinary circumstance
prevented him from filing a timely 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 action in this Court. Applicant also
should include 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
Respondents shall file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one 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 December 28, 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?