JACKSON-EL v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 12/12/2011. (TH, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
JOLANDA BORDLEY JACKSON-EL,
:
: Civil Action No. 11-4199 (RMB)
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
: OPINION
:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., :
:
Respondents.
:
:
APPEARANCES:
JOLANDA BORDLEY JACKSON-EL, Petitioner pro se
1423 Elwood Road
Hammonton, New Jersey 08037
BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court by way of Jolanda Bordley
Jackson-El’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
For the reasons discussed below,
Petitioner will be granted thirty days to resubmit her petition, as
it currently does not comply with the Section 2254 Habeas Rules.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In the petition,
Petitioner states that she was convicted of “speeding and driving
while license revoked.” (Pet. at ¶3.) The petition further states
that “THIS IS A MOORISH AMERICAN UNDER FEDERAL CLASSIFICATIONS;
NATIONAL ARCHIVE RECORD GROUP 147 BK.521 FILE 5-39, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE BM:$WD:144-35-0, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1-17, UNIQUE
IDENTIFIER 1237-7 HIERARCHAL CODE R1.01.052.004,FEDERAL CODE 667,
FEDERAL CODE 463AND OUR AUTHORITY COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS
DOC#10105905 BJ.521 PG.579" (Id. at I(3)(B).)
The petition further states: “THE DEFENDANT IS NATIVE AMERICAN
ACCORDING TO HIS CLASSIFICATIONS AND PROTECTIONS, ALSO MR. MARTINEZ
HAS DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITYS [sic] ACCORDING TO HIS CLASSIFICATION AND
STATUS.”
(Id. at I(4)(A)(3).)
Finally, the petition states that
“On July 14, 2011, Jolanda Bordley Jackson-El was kidnapped by a
Mullica Township, NJ police person who represented himself as a
Verizon employee without notice of warrant or reasonable cause.
She has been detained in the Atlantic County jail since that time.”
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than
more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be
construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance.
See Royce v.
Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General,
878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414
F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969).
B. Analysis
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that: “[t]he Supreme Court, a
Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall
entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of
a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only
on
the
ground
that
he
is
in
custody
in
violation
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
of
the
Rule 2(c)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Court requires, inter alia, that the petition: (1) specify
all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state
the
facts
requested.
supporting
each
R. 2(c) (1)-(3).
ground;
and
(3)
state
the
relief
Further, Rule 2(d) requires that the
petition “substantially follow either the form appended to [the
Rules] or a form prescribed by a local district court rule.” R.
2(d).
A district court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition,
summarily or otherwise, if it appears from the face of the petition
that petitioner does not claim a constitutional violation, as
required by § 2254(a). Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir.
1985); Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Petitioner’s
current
petition
does
not
meet
these
requirements.
Specifically, it is not clear to the Court from the
face
petition,
of
the
the
grounds
for
relief
available
to
Petitioner; the facts Petitioner alleges to support those grounds;
or the relief Petitioner is requesting from this Court.
Further,
it is not clear to the Court what conviction the Petitioner is
challenging and whether she is “in custody” pursuant to that
conviction.1
Finally, Petitioner has not alleged the deprivation
of a federal right.
Therefore, Petitioner shall be granted 30 days from the date
of this Opinion to resubmit an amended petition that complies with
Rule 2 of the Section 2254 Habeas Rules. The Clerk of the Court
shall provide Petitioner with a blank form for a Petition for
Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State Custody
(Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the petition
does not comply with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Court.
Petitioner shall be
granted 30 days from the date of this Opinion to resubmit an
amended petition that complies with the Section 2254 Habeas Rules.
In the event that Petitioner fails to submit an amended petition
within 30 days, the Court will enter an order without further
notice that dismisses the petition in its entirety pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2243.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Dated: December 12, 2011
1
The Court notes that a petitioner must be “in custody” under the
conviction he is attacking when the petition is filed, in order for this Court
to have jurisdiction. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-92 (1989). See
also 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
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.
Why Is My Information Online?