From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinkey v. Robbins

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jan 24, 2007
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00018-BNB (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00018-BNB.

January 24, 2007


ORDER CONSTRUING ACTION AS A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE CLAIMS ON A § 2241 COURT-APPROVED FORM


Plaintiff Arthur Pinkey currently is held at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo, Colorado. On December 22, 2006, Mr. Pinkey submitted to the Court a pro se Prisoner Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he asserts that he has been placed at the Mental Health Institute in Pueblo to determine if he is competent to go to trial. He also contends, however, that the charges against him have been dropped and that, therefore, there is no need to determine his competency. He further asserts that his trial date has not been set within the six-month limit. Plaintiff seeks an order by the Court that directs Defendants to immediately release him from the medical hold that has been placed on him and to release him from custody.

The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Mr. Pinkey 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). If the Complaint reasonably can be read "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [a court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." Hall , 935 F.2d at 1110. However, a court should not act as a pro se litigant's advocate. See id.

It appears that Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. His claims more appropriately are dealt with in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action. Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the action is construed as an Application filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as opposed to a Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall alter the Docket in the instant filing to reflect the proper nature of the action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Pinkey complete and file with the Court a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Application form within thirty days from the date of this Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail to Mr. Pinkey two copies of the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Application form. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Pinkey fails to complete and file with the Court a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Application form within thirty days from the date of this Order, the action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not review the merits of the action until Mr. Pinkey has filed the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Application form. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's January 22, 2007, Order Granting Plaintiff Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Without Payment of Initial Partial Filing Fee is vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 filed on December 22, 2006, is treated as a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action and is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court note Plaintiff's address as stated on the envelope submitted to the Court on January 22, 2007.


Summaries of

Pinkey v. Robbins

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jan 24, 2007
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00018-BNB (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2007)
Case details for

Pinkey v. Robbins

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR PINKEY, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE WILLIAM ROBBINS, and MITCHELL…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jan 24, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00018-BNB (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2007)