Croft (PS) v. Executive Director, of Colorado Department of Corrections et al
| Sean Croft |
| Executive Director, of Colorado Department of Corrections, Warden of the Sterling Correctional Facility and Phil Weiser |
| 1:2026cv02736 |
| June 18, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Richard T Gurley |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 6, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER. The "Prisoner Motion for Appointment of Counsel" (ECF No. #7 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The request for counsel is premature because this case is under initial review. Petitioner may renew the request for counsel if the case is later drawn to a presiding judge under Local Rule 8.1(c), by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 8/6/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.(eluce, )
|
| Filing 8 Acceptance of Service, filed by Respondents Executive Director, of Colorado Department of Corrections, Warden of the Sterling Correctional Facility re #5 Order to File Preliminary Response, #4 Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (eluce, ) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of Service by Clerk of Court re #5 Order to File Preliminary Response, #4 Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus for process of service. (eluce, ) |
| Filing 7 PRISONER MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Petitioner Sean Croft. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(eluce, ) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER to File Preliminary Response. It is ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order Respondents shall file a preliminary response that complies with this order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the preliminary response Petitioner may file a reply. If Respondents do not intend to raise the affirmative defenses of timeliness or exhaustion of state-court remedies, Respondents must notify the Court of that decision in the preliminary response. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve Respondents with a copy of this order and a copy of the amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (ECF No. #4 ), by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 8/3/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. (eluce, )
|
| Filing 4 AMENDED APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, filed by Sean Croft.(eluce, ) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO CURE DEFICIENCIES. It is ORDERED that Applicant cure the deficiency designated above within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. If Applicant fails to cure the designated deficiency within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the action will be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without prejudice, by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on 6/24/2026. For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record. (eluce, )
|
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley for Initial Review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1 (b). Text Only Entry. (jberr, ) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2254 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number 118447), filed by Sean Croft. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope) (jberr, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
