Maunz v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, San Carlos Correctional Facility
1:12-cv-02225
D. Colo.Dec 14, 2012Background
- Maunz, a Colorado prisoner at San Carlos Correctional Facility, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. §2241 habeas petition (ECF No. 20).
- The court liberally construes pro se filings but will not act as his advocate and orders amendment for clarity and form compliance.
- Maunz challenges a state-court conviction from Denver District Court case 10CR1101, not the execution of sentence.
- Because the action attacks a state conviction, §2254 governs rather than §2241, requiring amendment on the proper §2254 form if he wishes to proceed (Montez v. McKinna).
- Maunz must specify the federal constitutional claims with particular factual support; naked boilerplate claims are insufficient under Rules Governing §2254 Cases (Rules 2(c)(1)-(2)).
- Two motions are resolved: the extension request is denied, and the photocopy request is granted; the clerk will return the original §2241 application to Maunz and provide a blank §2254 form, with a 30-day deadline to amend; failure to amend may lead to dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2254 is the proper vehicle for challenging a state conviction | Maunz asserts habeas relief under §2241 | The claim attacks a state conviction, so §2254 applies | §2254 is proper; amendment required |
| Whether Maunz must plead specific federal constitutional claims with factual support | Maunz identifies a speedy-trial claim but lacks specificity | Habeas requires particularity and factual allegations for each claim | Yes; amendment must identify claims with factual support |
| What pleading form and timetable apply for the amended petition | Maunz should be allowed to proceed with amendment | Amendment required on proper §2254 form within 30 days | Amendment due within 30 days; failure may result in dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (liberal construction for pro se filings)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings must be read liberally; not advocacy for the litigant)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000) (limits on habeas jurisdiction; state-conviction challenges under §2254)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (pleading with particularity; federal constitutional claims require specifics)
- Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318 (10th Cir. 1992) (habeas pleadings must allege cognizable constitutional violations)