Filed: Jul. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before me on defendant's pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [#335] 1 filed July 13. 2015. For the reasons stated below, defendant will be ordered to file an amended 2255 motion. The court has reviewed the 2255 motion and finds that the motion does not comply with the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts beca
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter is before me on defendant's pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [#335] 1 filed July 13. 2015. For the reasons stated below, defendant will be ordered to file an amended 2255 motion. The court has reviewed the 2255 motion and finds that the motion does not comply with the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts becau..
More
ORDER
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matter is before me on defendant's pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [#335]1 filed July 13. 2015. For the reasons stated below, defendant will be ordered to file an amended § 2255 motion.
The court has reviewed the § 2255 motion and finds that the motion does not comply with the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts because defendant fails to allege specific facts in support of his claims that demonstrate his rights have been violated. Pursuant to Rule 2(b)(2), Defendant must "state the facts supporting each ground." The habeas corpus rules are more demanding than the rules applicable to ordinary civil actions, which require only notice pleading. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (discussing identical rules applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applications). Naked allegations of constitutional violations are not cognizable. See Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That movant shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended § 2255 motion that complies with the requirements specified in this order;
2. That the § 2255 motion (#335) filed July 13, 2015, will be denied without further notice if defendant fails to file an amended § 2255 motion within the time allowed.
