SALAS v. WARREN et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER directing the Clerk to reopen 11-5154; ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate 16-2018 as duplicative of 11-5154; ORDERED that the Clerk shall refund Petitioner the $5 filing fee paid in connection with 16-2018; ORDERE D that stay of 11-5154 is extended for a period of 45 days; ORDERED that within 45 days, Petitioner shall file in 11-5154, an Amended Petition which represents his one all-inclusive petition, etc.; ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate 11-5154, etc. (Finance notified). Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/19/2016. (dmr)(n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
JUAN C. SALAS,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 16-2018 (NLH)
:
v.
:
:
STEVEN JOHNSON, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
______________________________:
:
JUAN C. SALAS,
:
Civ. No. 11-5154 (NLH)
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
:
CHARLES WARREN, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
______________________________:
The instant matter has a complicated procedural history.
On or about September 8, 2011, Juan C. Salas, filed a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which
gave rise to the case Salas v. Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH)
(D.N.J.) (“Salas-I”). (Salas-I, ECF No. 1).
Because it was
apparent that all of the claims raised in Salas-I were not fully
exhausted, and because Petitioner indicated that he was pursuing
a second Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”) petition, this Court
granted Petitioner a stay and abeyance. (Salas-I, ECF No. 6).
This Court also informed Petitioner of his rights, pursuant to
the holding in Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3 414 (3d Cir. 2000).
(Id.).
On June 19, 2012, Petitioner submitted a letter in Salas-I
indicating that his second PCR application had been denied as
untimely; but that he wished to include the challenges raised in
that second PCR in his § 2254 petition. (Salas-I, ECF No. 8).
Petitioner also requested a blank § 2254 petition.
On or about July 11, 2012, the Clerk of the Court received
from Petitioner another complete § 2254 petition, which gave
rise to Petitioner’s second habeas case, Salas v. Warren, No.
12-4275 (NLH) (D.N.J.) (“Salas-II”). (Salas-II, ECF No. 1).
Upon recognizing that Salas-II was a duplicate of Salas-I, on
April 26, 2013, this Court directed the Clerk to terminate
Salas-II, and elected to proceed solely with Petitioner’s SalasI action in order to eliminate any statute of limitations
concerns. (Salas-I, ECF No. 9).
In this Court’s April 26, 2013 Order, however, it noted
that Petitioner indicated he wished to raise in his § 2254
petition
(a) all his state and federal law based challenges
raised on direct appeal to the Appellate Division but
not challenged before the Supreme Court of New Jersey;
(b) all his state and federal law based challenges
raised, during his first PCR, to the Law Division,
Appellate Division and the Supreme Court of New
Jersey; and (c) all his state and federal law based
challenges raised and dismissed as untimely during his
second PCR, this Court finds it warranted to note the
following legal concepts which Petitioner should
consider prior to executing his all-inclusive
petition.
(Salas-I, ECF No. 9 at 4).
In recognizing that Petitioner intended raise claims which
may have exceeded the scope of federal habeas review, and which
appeared to be facially unexhausted, this Court discussed these
concepts in detail in its April 26, 2013 Order. (Id. at 4-14).
Specifically, this Court noted that Petitioner had never
sought certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court for
challenges he raised on direct appeal.
Accordingly, this Court
informed Petitioner that he may either withdraw his § 2254
claims based on his unexhausted direct appellate challenges, or
attempt to complete their exhaustion in the state court.
Further, this Court noted that it appeared that the
challenges raised in Petitioner’s second PCR petition were
procedurally defaulted because the PCR court dismissed them
based on purely procedural, state law grounds of untimeliness.
Accordingly, this Court informed Petitioner that he may either
withdraw these challenges or attempt to overcome the procedural
default bar by asserting facts warranting excuse of nonexhaustion and resolution of these claims on their merits.
The Court extended the stay in Salas-I in order to afford
Petitioner the opportunity to make an informed decision, and/or
to take appropriate action in the state court.
In a letter dated July 12, 2013, Petitioner indicated that
he wished to seek certification with regard to his unexhausted
direct appellate claims. (Salas-I, ECF No. 10).
Based on this Court’s research, it appears that at the time
Petitioner filed his July 12, 2013 letter, his third PCR
petition was pending before the state court.
Specifically, his
third PCR petition was denied by the trial court on June 24,
2013, and the appellate division affirmed that decision on June
3, 2015. State v. Salas, No. A-5469-12T3, 2015 WL 3476924 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. June 3, 2015).
The Supreme Court of New
Jersey denied certification on February 5, 2016. State v. Salas,
224 N.J. 245, 130 A.3d 1247 (2016).
Thereafter, Petitioner submitted another § 2254 petition on
or about April 11, 2016, which gave rise to the instant case,
Salas v. Johnson, No. 16-2018 (NLH) (D.N.J.) (“Salas-III”).
(Salas-III, ECF No. 1).
It is apparent, however, that
Petitioner’s Salas-III action challenges the same conviction and
sentence as his Salas-I proceeding.
The power of a federal court to prevent duplicative
litigation is intended “to foster judicial economy and
the ‘comprehensive disposition of litigation,’” Curtis
v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2000)
(quoting Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C–O–Two Fire
Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S. Ct. 219, 96
L.Ed. 200 (1952)), and “to protect parties from ‘the
vexation of concurrent litigation over the same
subject matter.’” Id. (quoting Adam v. Jacobs, 950
F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 1991)).
Gumbs v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of New Jersey, No. CIV.A. 131749 SRC, 2014 WL 4284469, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014).
Therefore, this Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to
terminate Salas-III and will proceed solely with Petitioner’s
Salas-I action.
As explained this Court’s April 26, 2013
Opinion, the election in favor of Salas-I is made to eliminate
any statute of limitation concerns. See Urcinoli v. Cathel, 546
F.3d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 2008).
Because the filing fee Petitioner
submitted with his Salas-II petition was applied to his action
in Salas-I, it was unnecessary for Petitioner to pay a new
filing fee in relation to his Salas-III action.
Therefore, the
Clerk of the Court will be directed to refund Petitioner the $5
paid in connection with Salas-III.
However, this Court notes that in Salas-III, Petitioner
asserts only one claim for relief; namely, that his sentence was
unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012).
(Salas-III, ECF No. 1 at 5).
It is unclear to the Court whether
Petitioner has abandoned the claims initially raised in Salas-I,
and wishes the Petition in Salas-III to be his one all-inclusive
Petition.
Petitioner has previously been informed, as required
by Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414, of his rights and obligations
as the result of filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Salas-I, ECF No. 6 at 8-9, n.7).
Nevertheless, this Court
again takes the opportunity to inform Petitioner that — under
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) —
prisoners challenging the legality of their detention pursuant
to the judgment of a state court must bring in one § 2254
petition all the arguments they have to collaterally attack the
state judgment and, except in extremely limited circumstances,
must file this one all-inclusive petition within one year of the
date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Because it is unclear what claims Petitioner seeks to raise
in his one all-inclusive habeas petition, this Court will afford
Petitioner one final opportunity to submit an Amended Petition
which sets forth all claims he intends to raise.
Petitioner is
again reminded that his challenges should be limited to claims
based on federal law that were duly exhausted in the state
courts. 1
To the extent his claims remain unexhausted, Petitioner
may withdraw these challenges or attempt to overcome any
1
This Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to provide
Petitioner with a copy of its April 26, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order. (Salas-I, ECF No. 9). Petitioner may consult that
document for an in-depth discussion regarding the scope of
federal habeas review and exhaustion.
procedural default by asserting facts warranting excuse of nonexhaustion and resolution of these claims on their merits. 2
Because this Court is uncertain how Petitioner wishes to
proceed in this matter — out of an abundance of caution — this
Court will extend Petitioner’s stay in Salas-I in order to allow
Petitioner an opportunity to contemplate his options and make an
informed decision.
Petitioner is required to notify this Court
of his decision, in writing, within 45 days of the date of this
Order.
Therefore,
IT IS on this
19th
day of
May
, 2016,
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reopen Salas v.
Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH) (D.N.J.), for the purpose of entering
this Memorandum Opinion and Order, by making a new and separate
entry on the docket reading “CIVIL ACTION REOPENED”; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate Salas
v. Johnson, No. 16-2018 (NLH) (D.N.J.), as duplicative of Salas
v. Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH) (D.N.J.), by making a new and
separate entry on the docket reading “CIVIL ACTION TERMINATED”;
and it is further
2
Petitioner has not expressed any intention to return to state
court to exhaust any unexhausted claims. To the extent he
wishes to do so, he must notify this Court, in writing.
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refund Petitioner
the $5 filing fee paid in connection with Salas v. Johnson, No.
16-2018 (NLH) (D.N.J.); and it is further
ORDERED that stay of Salas v. Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH)
(D.N.J.), is extended for a period of 45 days, in order to allow
Petitioner an opportunity to reflect on his options and make his
elections; and it is further
ORDERED that that, within 45 days from the date of entry of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Petitioner shall file in
Salas v. Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH) (D.N.J.), an Amended Petition
which represents his one all-inclusive petition and which sets
forth all claims he seeks to assert in this action; and
Petitioner is reminded that his challenges must be limited to
claims based on federal law that were duly exhausted in the
state courts, or for which failure to exhaust should be excused;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively
terminate Salas v. Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH) (D.N.J.), by making
a new and separate entry on the docket reading “CIVIL ACTION
TERMINATED”; and it is further
ORDERED that the administrative termination of Salas v.
Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH) (D.N.J.), is not a dismissal on the
merits, and no statement made in this Memorandum Opinion and
Order shall be construed as indicative of this Court’s
withdrawal of its jurisdiction over that matter; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward to
Petitioner a blank § 2254 habeas petition form — AO 241
(modified): DNJ-Habeas-008 (Rev.01-2014) — to be used in the
event Petitioner wishes to submit an Amended Petition; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward to
Petitioner a copy of this Court’s April 26, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order in Salas v. Warren, No. 11-5154 (NLH)
(D.N.J.), (Salas-I ECF No. 9); and it is further
ORDERED that, if Petitioner does not, within 45 days after
the entry of this Order, file a written statement informing the
Court of how he wishes to proceed — along with an Amended
Petition which represents his one all-inclusive petition — then
the Court will proceed using the most recently submitted
petition, (Salas-III, ECF No. 1), as filed; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Order
on Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.
___s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
At Camden, New Jersey
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?