Anaya v. Hatch
1:20-cv-00357
| D.N.M. | Jun 2, 2020Background
- Arturo Anaya, a pro se prisoner at the Northeast New Mexico Detention Facility, filed a handwritten pleading asserting he is falsely imprisoned and seeking relief that amounts to a direct attack on his conviction. The Court construed the filing as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- The Court found the submission deficient and ordered Anaya to cure defects within 30 days by filing a signed petition in the proper form and either paying the $5 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepayment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915; the Court provided the required forms.
- More than 30 days passed and Anaya did not submit the required forms, pay the fee, or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.
- The Court concluded Anaya has failed to comply with its Order, with the Local Rules, and to prosecute the action.
- Rather than immediately dismissing, the Court issued an order to show cause directing Anaya to explain within 30 days (by July 1, 2020) why the petition should not be dismissed for noncompliance with § 1915, failure to comply with the Court’s Order, and failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper characterization of the filing (habeas vs. civil) | Anaya asserts he is falsely imprisoned and seeks relief from his conviction. | Court views the pleading as a direct attack on conviction and therefore a § 2254 habeas petition. | Treated as a § 2254 habeas corpus petition. |
| Obligation to cure filing defects and pay or seek IFP under § 1915 | No substantive response or cure supplied by Anaya. | Court must enforce fee/IFP requirements and require proper form. | Court ordered cure; provided forms and deadline; noncompliance may justify dismissal. |
| Failure to comply and failure to prosecute justification for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) | No argument—Anaya did not respond to the Order. | Court may dismiss for failure to prosecute or to obey orders. | Court issued a show-cause order giving Anaya 30 days to avoid dismissal; warned case may be dismissed if no showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2003) (district court may dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Rule 41(b))
- Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120 (10th Cir. 1980) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules)
- Wiley v. Holt, [citation="42 F. App'x 399"] (10th Cir. 2002) (a filing that attacks a conviction may be properly treated as a § 2254 habeas petition)