Denewiler v. Attorney General State of New Mexico et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JARRICK EARL DENEWILER,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 24-cv-1243 SMD/KK
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jarrick Earl Denewiler’s Habeas Corpus
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) (Petition), filed December 11, 2024. 	Petitioner is
proceeding pro se and was incarcerated when he filed the Petition. 	He challenges his state
convictions for two counts of aggravated assault upon a peace officer, two counts of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, one count of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, and one
count of criminal damage to property. 	Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 	(Doc. 4) (IFP Motion). 	Petitioner
paid the $5.00 habeas filing fee on April 7, 2025. 	Accordingly, to the extent Petitioner seeks a
waiver of the $5.00 habeas filing fee, the request is moot. 	To the extent he seeks other benefits
of in forma pauperis status, such as court-supplied service, the IFP Motion (Doc. 4) will be granted.
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2023, Petitioner was found guilty following a bench trial of two counts of
aggravated assault upon a peace officer, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
one count of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, and one count of criminal damage to
Case 1:24-cv-01243-SMD-GBW Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
property. 	See Judgment and Sentence, filed in Case No. D-101-CR-2021-157. 1 	The state court
sentenced him to a total term of 18 years imprisonment. 	Id. 	The judgment on the conviction and
sentence was entered May 2, 2023. 	See id. 	Petitioner filed a direct appeal, and the New Mexico
Court of Appeals (NMCA) affirmed the conviction and sentence on February 19, 2024. 	See
Memorandum Opinion, filed in Case No. A-1-CA-41165. 	The New Mexico Supreme Court
(NMSC) denied certiorari relief on April 10, 2024. 	See Order Denying Cert. Pet., filed in Case
No. S-1-SC-40344. 	The state dockets reflect Petitioner did not seek further review with the
United States Supreme Court (USSC). 	His conviction therefore became final, at the latest, on
July 9, 2024, i.e., the first business day after expiration of the 90-day federal certiorari period. 	See
Rhine v. Boone, 182 F.3d 1153, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999) (where petitioner declines to seek federal
certiorari review on direct appeal, the conviction becomes final after the 90-day USSC certiorari
period has passed).
On August 13, 2024, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition. 	See Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, filed in Case No. D-0101-CR-2021-00157. 	The state court denied the state
habeas petition on October 15, 2024, and the NMSC denied certiorari relief on January 8, 2025.
See Order on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on Case No. D-101-CR-2023-0248, and
Order Denying Cert. Pet., filed in Case No. S-1-SC-40674. 2
1 To better interpret the citations in the Petition, the Court took judicial notice of Petitioner’s state
court criminal dockets, Case Nos. D-101-CR-2021-157, D-101-CR-2023-248, A-1-CA-41165,
S-1-SC-40344, and S-1-SC-40674. 	See United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765, 768 n. 2 (10th Cir.
2010) (recognizing a court may take judicial notice of docket information from another court).
2 The state district court entered its order denying Petitioner’s state habeas petition in Case No.
D-101-CR-2023-0248, where Petitioner had filed an earlier habeas petition prior to his bench trial.
Case 1:24-cv-01243-SMD-GBW Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
DISCUSSION
Based on the foregoing, the December 11, 2024 Petition appears to be filed within one year
of when Petitioner’s conviction became final. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Locke v. Saffle,
237 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2001) (A judgment becomes final “by the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”). 	The Petition does not appear to
be successive, Petitioner alleges he exhausted state remedies, and Petitioner’s arguments warrant
a full review of the state record. 	This case would normally survive initial screening, but the Court
cannot order an answer to the current pleadings because the Petition does not contain a short, plain
statement of the grounds for relief, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 	It also fails to
“substantially follow … the form” Section 2254 petition, as required by Habeas Corpus Rule 2(d).
The Petition consists of 160 pages, most of which is a lengthy written narrative describing the
history of the criminal proceedings and habeas arguments interspersed throughout the case history.
The Petition also includes exhibits and records from his state case.
It is not the role of the Court to “sort through a lengthy … [pleading] and voluminous
exhibits … to construct plaintiff’s causes of action.” 	McNamara v. Brauchler, 570 Fed. App’x
741, 743 (10th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 	The Court will therefore order Petitioner to file a
single, amended petition limited to thirty-five (35) pages within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Order. 	When drafting his amendment, Petitioner should include a brief description of each claim
(e.g., “ineffective assistance by trial counsel” or “erroneous admission of testimony by Jane Doe”)
in the sections of the Section 2254 petition titled “Ground One,” “Ground Two,” etc. 	If Petitioner
must use additional pages, they should follow the same general format as the form petition (i.e.,
he should number each ground for relief and include a brief description of the alleged wrongdoing
under the header). 	Petitioner need not include lengthy arguments; his counseled appellate briefs,
Case 1:24-cv-01243-SMD-GBW Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
which include more information about each claim, will be part of the record if he complies with
this Order. 	Respondents are responsible for providing the state record in a pro se habeas
proceeding, and Petitioner may request additional records if Respondents’ filings are incomplete.
If Petitioner fails to timely file an amended Section 2254 petition that complies with
Rule 8(a) and this Order, the Court may dismiss this action with prejudice and any future
Section 2254 filings may be time barred. 	The Clerk’s Office will mail Petitioner another copy of
the Section 2254 form, which he should use when drafting the amendment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 4) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file an amended Section 2254 petition
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order that is limited to 35 pages and is consistent with
the above instructions. 	The Clerk’s Office shall MAIL Petitioner a blank Section 2254 form.
________________________________
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01243-SMD-GBW Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4