From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duran v. Ploughe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 12, 2011
Civil Action No. 11-CV -02260-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 12, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-CV -02260-BNB

09-12-2011

EUGENE DURAN, Applicant, v. PAMELA PLOUGHE, Acting Warden CTCF, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 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 filed on August 29, 2011, 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, they must notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response. Respondents may not file a dispositive motion as their 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 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, they must notify the Court of that decision in the Pre-Answer Response.

DATED September 12, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Boyd N. Boland

United States Magistrate Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO


CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02260-BNB

Eugene Duran

Prisoner No. 129956

Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility

PO Box 1010

Canon City, CO 81215

Pamela Ploughe

c/o Keith Nordell

Colorado Department of Corrections

Office of Legal Affairs

DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY

John Suthers, Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY

James Quinn, Asst. Attorney General Office of the Attorney General DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY COURTESY COPY

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the ORDER to the above-named individuals, and the following forms to Keith Nordell for service of process on Pamela Ploughe: APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED 08/29/11 on

GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK

By:______________________

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Duran v. Ploughe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 12, 2011
Civil Action No. 11-CV -02260-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Duran v. Ploughe

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE DURAN, Applicant, v. PAMELA PLOUGHE, Acting Warden CTCF, and THE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Sep 12, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-CV -02260-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 12, 2011)