Hamilton v. USA et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER to AMEND DEFICIENT PETITION. Petitioner shall have thirty days from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies noted above. The Clerk's Office shall mail Petitioner a copy of the Pro Se Litigan t Guide with a proper petition and/or civil rights complaint for him to complete, according to the directions. If Petitioner fails to timely cure the above noted deficiencies, as instructed herein, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 10/17/2014. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

TONY ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Petitioner,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER TO AMEND
DEFICIENT PETITION
Case No. 2:14-CV-114 CW

UNITED STATES et al.,

District Judge Clark Waddoups

Respondents.

Petitioner, Tony Alexander Hamilton, an inmate at Utah State Prison, filed a pro se
habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (2014). Reviewing the Petition, the Court
concludes that the Petition is deficient as described below. See id. Petitioner must cure these
deficiencies if he wishes to pursue his claims.
Deficiencies in Petition:
Petition:
(a)

does not list the full procedural history of all direct appeals or post-conviction
proceedings, with complete dates.

(b)

inappropriately requests relief under § 2254 for some claims that appear to be more
properly brought under § 2241.

(c)

appears to allege claims regarding Petitioner's conditions of confinement (e.g., legal
access), which are inappropriately brought in this habeas petition and should instead be
brought in a § 1983 complaint in a separate case.

(d)

lists a respondent other than his custodian.

(e)

refers to the parties as commercial entities, which is inappropriate in a habeas context.

(f)

has possibly been supplemented by numerous other potential claims in a variety of other
documents filed in this case by Petitioner.

(g)

has claims appearing to be based on the illegality of Petitioner's current confinement;
however, the petition was apparently not submitted using the legal help Petitioner 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 Petitioner
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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 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." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1009 (10th Cir. 1991). 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 additional facts, [or]
construct a legal theory for [petitioner] that assumes facts that have not been pleaded." Dunn v.
White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989).

2

Petitioner should consider the following general points before refiling his petition. First,
the revised petition must stand entirely on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
reference, any portion of the original petition or any other documents previously filed by
Petitioner. See Murray v. Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (amendment
supercedes original). Second, the petitioner must clearly state whom his custodian is and name
that person (a warden or ultimate supervisor of an imprisonment facility) as the respondent. See
R. 2, Rs. Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts. Third, Petitioner may generally not
bring civil-rights claims as to the conditions of his confinement in a habeas corpus petition.
Fourth, any claims about Petitioner's underlying conviction and/or sentencing should be brought
under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254; any claims about the execution of Petitioner's sentence should be
brought under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241. Fifth, Petitioner should seek help to prepare initial pleadings
from legal resources (e.g., contract attorneys) available where he is held.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Petitioner shall have THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to cure the
deficiencies noted above.
(2) The Clerk's Office shall mail Petitioner a copy of the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a
proper form petition and/or civil-rights complaint for him to complete, according to the
directions.

3

(3) If Petitioner fails to timely cure the above-noted deficiencies, as instructed herein, this
action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED this 17th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Court

4