You're viewing Docket Item 5 from the case Pinson v. Berkebile. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01953-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-01953-BNB

JEREMY PINSON,

Applicant,

v.

DAVID BERKEBILE,

Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Jeremy Pinson, is a prisoner in the custody of the United States

Bureau of Prisons, who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in

Florence, Colorado. Applicant, acting pro se, filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court must construe the Application liberally

because Applicant 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). The Court, however,

should not act as a pro se litigant’s advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the

reasons stated below, Applicant will be ordered to file an Amended Application.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts requires that Mr. Young 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).

Case 1:13-cv-01953-BNB Document 5 Filed 07/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Mr. Young must allege on the Court-approved form both the claims he seeks to

raise and the specific facts to support each asserted claim. The Court has reviewed the

Application submitted to the Court on July 22, 2013, and finds that it is deficient.

Applicant fails to identify the incident report number for each disciplinary action that he

is challenging. Therefore, Applicant will be ordered to file an Amended Application, on

a Court-approved form, that includes each incident report number and states how his

rights were violated in each of the associated disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order Applicant file an

Amended Application that complies with the Order. It is



FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant shall obtain the Court-approved form used

in filing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 actions (with the assistance of his case manager or the

facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at

www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Applicant fails within the time allowed to file an

Amended Application, as directed above, the action will be dismissed without further

notice.

DATED July 30, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

2