USA v. Bailey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Criminal Case No. 94-cr-152-WJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. 	DARREL BAILEY,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Before the Court is Defendant Darrel Bailey’s pro se Motion to Suppress (ECF
No. 257) (“Motion”). The Government filed a Response (ECF No. 28), which the Court
directed it to amend (ECF No. 29).1 But the Government inexplicably failed to do so,
and failed even to attempt to explain this omission—something the Court in the future
will not tolerate. Regardless, for the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
Bailey’s Motion is denied because it is simply unintelligible. Indeed, while his
Motion would ordinarily be deemed confessed in these circumstances (where the
Government did not file a substantive response), the Court cannot begin to decipher
what evidence he seeks to suppress at his upcoming Final Revocation of Supervised
Release Hearing. (ECF No. 22.) The following excerpt from the Motion illustrates the
problem:
1 The docket entries for the Government’s Response and the Court’s Order directing an
Amended Response appear only on the docket of Bailey’s other, related criminal case, 23-cr-
280-WJM—not 94-cr-184-WJM.
Case No. 1:94-cr-00152-WJM Document 261 filed 02/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
(ECF No. 257 at 1.) The rest of the two-page Motion is of a similar tenor. (See
generally id.)
Even though Bailey proceeds pro se, the Court cannot serve as his advocate.
See United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 864 n.1 (10th Cir. 2019) (the court cannot
act as an advocate for a pro se party). Thus, because the Motion is unintelligible and
does not identify which evidence Bailey seeks to suppress, or what other (if any) type of
relief he might be seeking, it is summarily denied. See Vaughn v. Krehbiel, 2006 WL
8454018, at *2 (D. Colo. June 16, 2006), aff'd, 240 F. App'x 803 (10th Cir. 2007) (“At the
outset, the Court denies the motion, out of hand, for incomprehensibility.”).
As a final point, however, the Court must briefly address the Government’s failure
to comply with its Order that it amend its Response to the Motion. The Court directed
the Government to do so because the Response was not responsive to the suppression
Motion. The Court could not have been clearer on this point: “While the opening
paragraph of the Response purports to address Bailey's Motion, the rest of the 7-page
Response appears to raise arguments opposing a Defendant Donald Ray Nichols's
motion for compassionate release. (See generally ECF No. 28.) Given this disconnect,
the Court assumes that the Government filed this Response in error.” (ECF No. 29.)
Case No. 1:94-cr-00152-WJM Document 261 filed 02/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
Yet despite the Court’s clear directive to amend its Response, the Government
did not do so. While the Court recognizes that the Government’s resources may be
limited as of late, that does not change its obligation to comply with court orders—
especially routine ones like that at issue here. Perhaps most importantly, moreover, the
Court would have benefited from the Government’s attempt to decode what the Motion
complains of. Again, the Court will not in the future overlook the Government’s failure to
abide by its Orders.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. (ECF Nos. 257.)
Dated this 24 th day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:94-cr-00152-WJM Document 261 filed 02/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3