United States District Court, D. Utah
CODY J. SABEY, Petitioner,
SCOTT CROWTHER, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER TO AMEND DEFICIENT
Waddoups United States District Court Judge
Cody J. Sabey, a Utah State Prison inmate, filed a pro
se habeas-corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C.S.
§ 2241 (2017). Reviewing the Petition, the Court
concludes that it must be amended to cure the below
deficiencies if Petitioner wishes to further pursue his
not on a Court-approved form.
possibly been supplemented by numerous other potential claims
in a variety of other documents filed in this case by
claims appearing to be based on the illegality of
Petitioner's current confinement; however, the petition
was apparently not submitted using the legal help Petitioner
is entitled to by his institution under the
Constitution--e.g., by contract attorneys. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring prisoners be
given "'adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the
law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have a reasonably
adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims
challenging their convictions or conditions of
confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an initial
pleading is required to contain "(1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the court's
jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader
seeks." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The requirements of Rule 8(a)
are intended to guarantee "that [respondents] enjoy fair
notice of what the claims against them are and the grounds
upon which they rest." TV Commc'ns Network, Inc.
v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991),
aff'd, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
litigants are not excused from compliance with the minimal
pleading requirements of Rule 8. "This is so because a
pro se [litigant] requires no special legal training to
recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must
provide such facts if the court is to determine whether he
makes out a claim on which relief can be granted."
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1009 (10th Cir.
1991). Moreover, "it is not the proper function of the
Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se
litigant." Id. at 1110. Thus, the Court cannot
"supply additional facts, [or] construct a legal theory
for [petitioner] that assumes facts that have not been
pleaded." Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197
(10th Cir. 1989).
should consider the following general points before refiling
his petition. First, the revised petition must stand entirely
on its own and shall not refer to, or incorporate by
reference, any portion of the original petition or any other
documents previously filed by Petitioner. See Murray v.
Archambo, 132 F.3d 609, 612 (10th Cir. 1998) (amendment
supersedes original). Second, the petitioner must clearly
state whom his custodian is and name that person (a warden or
ultimate supervisor of an imprisonment facility) as the
respondent. See R. 2, Rs. Governing § 2254
Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts. Third, Petitioner may
generally not bring civil-rights claims as to the conditions
of his confinement in a habeas-corpus petition. Fourth, any
claims about Petitioner's underlying conviction and/or
sentencing should be brought under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254
(2017); any claims about the execution of Petitioner's
sentence should be brought under id. § 2241.
Fifth, Petitioner should seek help to prepare initial
pleadings from legal resources (e.g., contract attorneys)
available where he is held.
Utah's Indeterminate Sentencing Scheme
possibly attacks the constitutionality of Utah's
indeterminate-sentencing scheme. The same types of challenges
have been soundly rejected by the Tenth Circuit in the past.
See Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 582 F.3d 1208
(10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1737
(2010). The Court may deny any relief on the basis of this
possible § 2254 claim.
more specific challenges to the BOP's authority to
determine his actual term of imprisonment within his sentence
of one-to-fifteen years may be based on Booker,
Blakely, and Apprendi. United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005); Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He again may be arguing
that Utah's indeterminate sentencing scheme, under which
the trial judge ...