United States District Court, D. Colorado
PHILIP A. BRIMMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On January 22, 2016, the Court entered an Order Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 31], dismissing this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action with prejudice. Following dismissal, Applicant filed, on January 25, 2016, a “Reply” [Docket No. 35], a “Motion for Appointment of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Counsel” [Docket No. 33], and a Motion to Compell [sic] the State to Disclose Exculpatory Evid./Impeachment Info., In Case 10CR131, Pursuant to the Brady/Giglio Rule [Docket No. 34].
In the January 22 Order, the Court observed that “Applicant ha[d] not filed any replies” to the Respondents’ Pre-Answer Response [Docket No. 9] or Answer [Docket No. 27]. [Docket No. 31]. However, the deadline for Applicant to file his Reply to the Respondents’ Answer - January 25, 2016 - had not yet passed. Accordingly, in fairness to Mr. Brown, the Court will consider, on its own motion, whether any of the arguments he raises in the Reply, or in the other motions filed the same date, warrant reconsideration of the January 22 Order.
Mr. Brown was convicted by a jury in Arapahoe County District Court, Case No. 10CR131, of second degree kidnapping, three counts of aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and theft for robbing a pawn shop. He was adjudicated a habitual offender and sentenced to an aggregate term of 256 years in the Colorado Department of Corrections. Applicant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in People v. Dirkin Brown, Case No. 12CA0181 (Colo.App. June 5, 2014) (unpublished). Docket No. 9-2. The Colorado Supreme Court denied Applicant’s petition for certiorari review on January 12, 2015. Docket No. 9-6.
On August 13, 2015, Mr. Brown filed, pro se, an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, raising the following claims:
1. “Sheridan Police Dept. (SPD) Det. Kristine Denise Bryant’s Vigilante Method Used To Wrongfully Convict Petitioner.”
2. “Colo. Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) Agent’s Destruction Of Evid., Negligent Testing Methods & Suppression Thereof.”
3. “Defective Warrant (Lack of Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction).” Docket No. 1.
In the dismissal order, the Court concluded that Mr. Brown was not entitled to federal habeas relief for his first and second claims -- that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation destroyed or failed to preserve evidence -- because the Colorado Court of Appeals’ resolution of those claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Court further determined that the state appellate court’s resolution of claims one and two was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See § 2254(d)(2).
With regard to Mr. Brown’s third claim -- challenging the legal sufficiency of his arrest warrant -- the Court determined that any Fourth Amendment challenge was not cognizable on federal habeas review because the state court proceedings were adequate to provide Applicant with an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim. See Stone v. Powell, 482 U.S. 465, 482-87 (1976).
II. APPLICANT’S POST-DISMISSAL FILINGS
Mr. Brown asserts in the Reply that he
has been denied all attempts . . . to obtain access, inspection or in-camera review of Sheridan Police Dept. (SPD) IA [Internal Affairs] Investigation Report (i.e. Brady material) in the matter of SPD Det. Kristine Denise Bryant’s egregious misconduct in Case 10CR131, which operates ...