Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. United States

United States District Court, D. Colorado

September 2, 2014

MAURICE LAJUAN THOMPSON, Applicant,
v.
UNITED STATES, Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO CURE DEFICIENCIES

BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.

Maurice Lajuan Thompson, currently is incarcerated at the Mesa County Detention Facility in Grand Junction, Colorado. He initiated this action on August 29, 2014 by submitting an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and "Motion to Proceed for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." It is unclear whether Applicant is challenging the execution of a sentence, or whether he is challenging the validity of his state conviction and sentence.

"The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody." See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). "Petitions under § 2241 are used to attack the execution of a sentence. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). By contrast, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceedings are used to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and sentence." See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997). If Mr. Thompson is attempting to challenge the execution of his state court sentence, the claims must be asserted in a habeas corpus application pursuant to § 2241. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). If Mr. Thompson is attempting to challenge the validity of his state court conviction and sentence, the claims must be asserted in a habeas corpus application pursuant to § 2254. See id.

Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 an application for writ of habeas corpus is directed to the person who has custody of the detained person. Therefore, Applicant is directed to name as Respondent the custodian of the facility where he is incarcerated.

As part of the Court's review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b), the Court has determined that the submitted documents are deficient as described in this order. Applicant will be directed to cure the following if he wishes to pursue his claims. Any papers that Applicant files in response to this order must include the civil action number on this order.

28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit:

(1) ___ is not submitted

(2) ___ is missing affidavit

(3) ___ is missing certified copy of prisoner's trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding this filing (necessary if filing a habeas corpus application)

(4) X is missing certificate showing current balance in prison account

(5) ___ is missing required financial information

(6) ___ is missing an original signature by the prisoner

(7) X is not on proper form (must use the Court's current form)

(8) ___ names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.