IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01970-BNB

Stanley Ravine

Prisoner No. 141155

Bent County Correctional Facility
11560 Road FF75

Las Animas, CO 81054

| hereby certify that | have mailed a copy of the ORDER to the above-named
individuals on September 16, 2011.

GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK

Wy,
puty Clerk


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FILED
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01970-BNB UNTER ENVER, COLORADO OS
STANLEY RAVINE, SEP 1 6 201
Applicant, GREGORY C. LANGHAM
CLERK

Vv.

BCCF UNIT MANAGER CEBULSKI, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Stanley Ravine, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Bent County Correctional
Facility in Las Animas, Colorado. Mr. Ravine, acting pro se, filed an Application for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee.

The Court must construe the application liberally because Mr. Ravine is a pro se
litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court, however, should not act as a pro se
litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr.
Ravine will be ordered to file an amended application.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires that Mr. Ravine go beyond notice pleading. See Blackledge v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977). Naked allegations of constitutional violations

devoid of factual support are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. See Ruark v.


Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Mr. Ravine must allege on the
Court-approved form both the claims he seeks to raise and the specific facts to support
each asserted claim. The Court has reviewed the application submitted to the Court on
August 16, 2011, and finds that it is deficient. Mr. Ravine fails to assert on pages five
and six a statement of the claims he intends to raise in this Court.

Therefore, Mr. Ravine will be ordered to file an amended application in which he
identifies, on the Court-approved form, the specific claims for relief he is asserting, and
the specific facts in support of each asserted claim.

Finally, Mr. Ravine is advised that the only proper respondent to a habeas corpus
action is the applicant’s custodian. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rules 2(a) and 1(b), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Harris v.
Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 1995). Therefore, BCCF Unit Manager
Cebulski is not a proper party to this action. Instead, the proper Respondent in this
action is the warden of Bent County Correctional Facility. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this order Applicant,
Stanley Ravine, file an amended application that complies with this order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Ravine shall obtain the court-approved
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form (with the
assistance of his case manager or the facility's legal assistant), along with the

applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Ravine fails within the time allowed to file an


amended application as directed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 16" day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge