You're viewing Docket Item 12 from the case Lollis v. Medina. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01436-BNB Document 12 Filed 07/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01436-BNB

MICHAEL K. LOLLIS,

Applicant,

v.

LOU ARCHULETA, Warden FCF, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER TO FILE PRE-ANSWER RESPONSE

As part of the preliminary consideration of the amended Application for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 7) filed on June 24, 2013, 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.



In support of the Pre-Answer Response, Respondents should attach as exhibits

Case 1:13-cv-01436-BNB Document 12 Filed 07/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

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 also should include

information relevant to equitable tolling, specifically as to whether he has pursued his

claims diligently and whether some extraordinary circumstance prevented him from

filing a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action in this Court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) 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 (21) 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 July 16, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2