Haff v. Firman

Filing 10

ORDER TO AMEND APPLICATION by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 12/30/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02579-GPG
STEPHEN HAFF, Private flesh and blood Sovereign American Citizen,
Applicant,
v.
PATRICK FIRMAN, Sheriff of the City and County of Denver,
Respondent.

ORDER TO AMEND APPLICATION

Applicant, Stephen Haff, is currently detained at the Denver County Jail. Mr.
Haff initiated this action by filing an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a Prisoner’s Motion and Af fidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action. T he Court reviewed the documents,
determined they were deficient, and entered an order on November 25, 2015,
instructing Mr. Haff cure the designated deficiencies. On December 23, 2015, Mr. Haff
submitted an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(ECF No. 9) challenging his pretrial detention.
The Court must construe the Application liberally because Mr. Haff is a pro se
litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se
litigant’s advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below , Mr. Haff
will be ordered to amend the Application.
In the Application, Mr. Haff alleges that he was arrested on January 12, 2015

and “deposited into the custody of the respondent Sheriff of the City and County of
Denver.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) He further alleges that the State of Colorado initiated
proceedings against him for “alleged violations of the State’s ‘criminal statutes.’” (Id.).
He asserts five claims based on the fact that he is “a Private Sovereign American
Citizen.” Specifically, he asserts that
•

[i]t is lawfully impossible for [him] to violate any statute belonging to
the state because [he] is not and has never been a member,
subject, and/or affiliated in any way with the state (claim one);

•

[he] is not subject to the Denver County and District Courts (claim
two);

•

[t]he state lacks legal standing to bring and maintain [his criminal]
case because the state has not suffered an (1) injury in fact (2) to a
legally protected interest (claim three);

•

Article III. Section 2. Clause 2., of the Constitution for the United
States of America specifically prohibits any state from exerting
jurisdiction over [his criminal case] (claim four); and

•

[t]he true nature of the proceeding is of a commercial nature and
the state and the state courts exerting jurisdiction over it. Are using
a quasi form of admiralty-maritime rules to intentionally deceive the
applicant (claim five).

(ECF No. 8 at 2-12).
Mr. Haff seeks an order “directing the respondent to certify the true cause of the
applicant’s detention.” (Id. at 13).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to applications for habeas corpus
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S.
257, 269 (1978); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 969-70 (10th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), a pleading “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statem ent of the claim
2

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on
clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible
pleadings violate the requirements of Rule 8.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts also requires that Mr. Haff go beyond notice pleading. See Blackledge v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to
§ 2241 actions. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 1(b). Naked
allegations of constitutional violations devoid of factual support are not cognizable in a
federal habeas action. See Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per
curiam).
Mr. Haff has failed to meet the requirements of both Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts. The Application fails to provide a short and plain statement of
his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. Moreover, his naked allegations of
constitutional violations are insufficient. Mr. Haff, however, will be given an opportunity
to file an Amended Application that complies with Rule 8 and Rule 4. The Amended
Application that Mr. Haff will be directed to file must stand on its own as a pleading that
asserts, clearly and concisely, each claim he intends to assert in this action. Mr. Haff
also is instructed to assert specifically in the Amended Application how his federal rights
have been violated.
Accordingly, it is
3

ORDERED that Mr. Haff file within thirty days from the date of this Order an
Amended Application that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Haff fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Application as directed the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 30 th day of December , 2015.
BY THE COURT:
S/ Gordon P. Gallagher

GORDON P. GALLAGHER
United States Magistrate Judge

4