You're viewing Docket Item 4 from the case Crownhart v. Obama. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01971-BNB Document 4 Filed 07/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01971-BNB

EARL J. CROWNHART,

Applicant,

v.

BABARK [sic] OBAMA,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Earl J. Crownhart currently is confined at the Grand Junction Regional

Center in Grand Junction, Colorado. Mr. Crownhart, acting pro se, has submitted to the

Court an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a

Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas

Action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the action.

Mr. Crownhart has been permanently enjoined from filing any civil actions in this

Court, in which he is the proponent of a claim, without representation of an attorney

licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, unless he first obtains leave of Court by a

judicial officer to proceed pro se in the action. See Crownhart v. Suthers, et al., No. 13-

cv-00959-LTB at ECF No. 5 (D. Colo. June 14, 2013). If a judicial officer finds Mr.

Crownhart’s pleadings to be without merit, repetitive, frivolous, or not in keeping with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 the pleading will be dismissed. Id.

Mr. Crownhart’s claims fail to meet the requirements set forth under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to applications for habeas corpus relief.

Case 1:13-cv-01971-BNB Document 4 Filed 07/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257,

269 (1978); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 969-70 (10th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .”

Mr. Crownhart does not include a short and plain statement showing that he is

entitled to relief as required pursuant to Rule 8. The claims are repetitive of the claims

dismissed in Crownhart v. Suthers, No. 12-cv-03053-LTB at ECF No. 57 (D. Colo. May

21, 2013), as either moot or for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Nothing Mr.

Crownhart asserts in this action indicates the claims have been exhausted and are ripe

for review. Furthermore, the relief Mr. Crownhart seeks is not available in a § 2241

action. Mr. Crownhart states under Section E., “Request for Relief,” of the Application

that he seeks “to prosecute (CDHS) Colorado Dept. Of Human Services under violation

criminal law.” Mr. Crownhart also has named Barack Obama as the respondent.

President Obama clearly is an improper party to this action The Court, therefore, will

dismiss the action.

The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from

this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied

for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If

Applicant files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in

accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Application is denied and the action is dismissed without

prejudice for the reasons stated above. It is

2

Case 1:13-cv-01971-BNB Document 4 Filed 07/31/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is denied as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 31st day of July , 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3