You're viewing Docket Item 5 from the case Pittman v. Young et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01935-BNB Document 5 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01935-BNB

EMANUEL V. PITTMAN,

Applicant,

v.

ANTHONY YOUNG,
BECKY R. LUCERO,
COLORADO BOARD OF PAROLE, and
JOHN W. SUTHERS, The Attorney General fo the State of Colorado,

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 in this case, the Court has determined that a

limited Pre-Answer Response is appropriate. At this time only Respondent John W.

Suthers will be directed, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

in the United States District Courts and to Denson v. Abbott, 554 F.Supp. 2d 1206 (D.

Colo. 2008), 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 Respondent Suthers does not intend to

raise either of these affirmative defenses, he must notify the Court of that decision in the

Pre-Answer Response. Respondent Suthers may not file a dispositive motion as his

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, Respondent Suthers should attach as

exhibits all relevant portions of the state court record, including but not limited to copies

Case 1:13-cv-01935-BNB Document 5 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

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 the only properly named Respondent for the purpose of service

at this time is John W. Suthers, The Attorney General of the State of Colorado. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this

Order Respondent Suthers 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 Respondent Suthers does not intend to raise either

of the affirmative defenses of timeliness or exhaustion of state court remedies, he must

notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response.

Dated: July 30, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2