Archuleta v. USA
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255), filed by Benjamin Archuleta. Movant shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies noted above. If Movant fails to timely cure the above-noted deficiencies in accord with the instructions herein this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 6/14/13. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BENJAMIN ARCHULETA,
ORDER TO AMEND
DEFICIENT MOTION, &
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Movant,
v.
Case No. 2:13-CV-337 DB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
District Judge Dee Benson
Respondent.
Movant, Benjamin Archuleta, a federal inmate in New Mexico,
filed a pro se "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence
by a Person in Federal Custody."
See 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (2013).
Reviewing the Motion, the Court concludes that the Motion is
deficient as described below.
See id.
Movant must cure these
deficiencies if he wishes to pursue his claims.
Deficiencies in Motion:
Motion:
(a)
alleges claims in a vague and rather nonsensical fashion.
(b)
does not list full procedural history of all direct appeals
or post-conviction proceedings, with complete dates.
(c)
has claims appearing to be based on the illegality of
Movant's current confinement; however, the motion was
apparently not submitted using the legal help Movant is
entitled to by his institution under the Constitution. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring
prisoners be given "'adequate law libraries or adequate
assistance from persons trained in the law' . . . to ensure
that inmates . . . have a reasonably adequate opportunity to
file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions
or conditions of confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)).
Instructions to Movant
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an
initial pleading is required to contain "(1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction
depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand
for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks."
8(a).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The requirements of Rule 8(a) are intended to guarantee
"that [respondents] enjoy fair notice of what the claims against
them are and the grounds upon which they rest."
TV Commc'ns
Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo.
1991), aff’d, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
Pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with the
minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8.
"This is so because a
pro se [litigant] requires no special legal training to recount
the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide
such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a
claim on which relief can be granted."
1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991).
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
Moreover, "it is not the proper
function of the Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se
litigant."
Id. at 1110.
Thus, the Court cannot "supply
2
additional facts, [or] construct a legal theory for [movant] that
assumes facts that have not been pleaded."
Dunn v. White, 880
F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).
Movant should consider the following points before refiling
his motion.
First, the revised motion must stand entirely on its
own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by reference, any
portion of the original motion or any other documents previously
filed Movant.
See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th
Cir. 1998) (amendment supercedes original).
Second,
The motion must:
(1) specify all the grounds for relief
available to the moving party;
(2) state the facts supporting each ground;
(3) state the relief requested;
(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly
handwritten; and
(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the
movant or by a person authorized to sign it
for the movant.
R. 2(b), Rs. Governing § 2255 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts.
Third, Movant may generally not bring civil rights claims as to
the conditions of his confinement in a habeas-corpus motion.
Fourth, any claims about Movant's underlying conviction and/or
sentencing should be brought under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255; any claims
about the execution of Movant's sentence should be brought under
28 U.S.C.S. § 2241.
Finally, Movant should seek legal assistance
from prison staff to prepare initial pleadings.
3
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Movant shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this
order to cure the deficiencies noted above.
(2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Movant a copy of the Pro
Se Litigant Guide with a proper form motion for him to complete,
according to the directions.
See R. 2(c), Rs. Governing § 2255
Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts ("The motion must substantially
follow either the form appended to these rules or a form
prescribed by a local district-court rule.
The clerk must make
forms available to moving parties without charge.").
(3) If Movant fails to timely cure the above-noted
deficiencies in accord with the instructions herein this action
will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED this 14th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
JUDGE DEE BENSON
United States District Court
4
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?