WOOD v. MAIN et al
Filing
2
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/4/11. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
PHILLIP WOOD,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN E. MAIN, et al.,
Respondents.
Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
Civil Action No. 11-6325 (JBS)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
PHILLIP WOOD, #15067
Anne Klein Forensic Center
P.O. Box 7717
West Trenton, New Jersey 08628
Petitioner Pro Se
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Phillip Wood (“Petitioner”), who is civilly committed
pursuant to N.J. STAT. ANN. § 30:4-27.15(a), filed a Petition for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging a conviction and aggregate four-year term of
imprisonment imposed on March 5, 2007, by the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, for third-degree
assault.
The principal question to be determined is whether,
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the petitioner may challenge his 2007
conviction and sentence for which he was no longer in custody
when this petition was filed.
For the reasons expressed below,
this Court will summarily dismiss the Petition for lack of
jurisdiction and deny a certificate of appealability.
I.
BACKGROUND
In 1981, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Burlington County, found Petitioner not guilty by reason of
insanity (“NGI”) of felony murder and aggravated arson.
See In
re Commitment of Phillip A. Wood, 2007 WL 4356135 (N.J. Super.,
App. Div., Dec. 12, 2007).
Petitioner was involuntarily
committed to a state hospital as an NGI acquittee, and received
periodic review hearings, in accordance with State v. Krol, 68
N.J. 236 (1975).1
On March 5, 2007 (while Petitioner was
committed on Krol status), the Law Division entered the judgment
of conviction which Petitioner challenges in this § 2254
Petition.
See Wood v. State, Civ. No. 08-4515 (JBS) opinion at 5
(D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2009).
Based on his guilty plea to third-degree
assault, the Law Division imposed a four-year term of
incarceration.
Id.
Petitioner was incarcerated at New Jersey
State Prison until November 5, 2009, when the four-year term
expired and he was recommitted under the NGI standard under Krol.
(Dkt. 1-1 at 3); see also Wood v. Main, Civ. No. 10-2075 (JHR)
opinion at 6 (D.N.J. June 6, 2011); N.J. Dept. of Corrections
Inmate Locator, https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details
?x=1192181&n=0 (Nov. 3, 2011).
1
“When a person accused of a crime is acquitted by reason
of insanity, the accused may be held in continued confinement if
the person is a danger to self or others and is in need of
medical treatment. We describe such person as being on Krol
status.” In re Commitment of W.K., 159 N.J. 1, 2 (1999) (citing
Krol, 68 N.J. 236).
2
By order filed March 31, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court
terminated Petitioner’s NGI Krol status, effective April 18,
2010, and ordered the Anne Klein Forensic Center to immediately
evaluate Petitioner to determine whether or not he should be
committed pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Commitment Law, N.J.
STAT. ANN. § 30:4-27.1 et seq.
See Wood v. Main, Civ. No. 10-2075
(JHR) opinion at 6 (D.N.J. June 6, 2011).
A hearing was
conducted, and Petitioner was civilly committed effective April
18, 2010, pursuant to N.J. STAT . ANN . § 30:4-27.15 (a), which
provides that “[i]f the court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the patient needs continued involuntary commitment
to treatment, it shall issue an order authorizing the involuntary
commitment of the patient and the assignment or admission of the
patient . . .”).
Id.
Petitioner executed the § 2254 Petition presently before
this Court on October 13, 2011.
The Petition challenges the
judgment of conviction of March 5, 2007, which imposed the fouryear term of imprisonment based on Petitioner’s guilty plea to
third-degree assault.
(Dkt. 1 at 1.)
Petitioner asserts that,
on December 12, 2008, the Law Division denied his petition for
post-conviction relief challenging this conviction, on July 13,
2010, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, and on July 13, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme
Court denied certification.
(Dkt. 1 at 2, 6.)
3
Petitioner
challenges the March 5, 2007, judgment of conviction on the
following grounds:
Ground [One]: NO COMPETENCY HEARING/ILLEGAL
SENTENCE/INEFFECTIVE ASST. OF COUNSEL.
Supporting Facts: 30 years of being
hospitalized in a psychiatric facility and
medication and no competency hearing[;]
denial of treatment for my mental illness.
Ground [Two]: SENTENCING A[N] INSANE PERSON
TO SERVE A STATE PRISON SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL.
Supporting Facts: Sentencing a[n] insane
person to serve a state prison sentence is
illegal.
(Dkt. 1 at 7, 8.)2
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements.”
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
Habeas Rule 2(c) requires a § 2254 petition to “specify all the
grounds for relief available to the petitioner,” “state the facts
supporting each ground,” “state the relief requested,” be
printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten, and be signed under
penalty of perjury.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c).
The Supreme
Court explained the pleading requirements under the Habeas Rules
as follows:
Habeas Rule 2(c) . . . provides that the
petition must “specify all the grounds for
2
The form § 2254 petition filed by Petitioner left the
space for “Ground One” blank, sets forth this ground under
“Ground Two,” and the following ground under “Ground Three.”
(Dkt. 1 at 5, 7, 8.)
4
relief available to the petitioner” and
“state the facts supporting each ground.”
See also Advisory Committee’s note on subd.
(c) of Habeas Corpus Rule 2, 28 U.S.C., p.
469 (“In the past, petitions have frequently
contained mere conclusions of law,
unsupported by any facts. [But] it is the
relationship of the facts to the claim
asserted that is important . . . .”);
Advisory Committee’s Note on Habeas Corpus
Rule 4, 28 U.S.C., p. 471 (“‘[N]otice’
pleading is not sufficient, for the petition
is expected to state facts that point to a
real possibility of constitutional error.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)) . . . .
A prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s demand that
habeas petitioners plead with particularity
is to assist the district court in
determining whether the State should be
ordered to “show cause why the writ should
not be granted.” § 2243. Under Habeas
Corpus Rule 4, if “it plainly appears from
the petition . . . that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in district court,” the
court must summarily dismiss the petition
without ordering a responsive pleading. If
the court orders the State to file an answer,
that pleading must “address the allegations
in the petition.” Rule 5(b).
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005).
Habeas Rule 4 requires a judge to sua sponte dismiss a §
2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading “[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4.
Thus, “Federal courts are authorized to
dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face.”
McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856.
Dismissal without the filing of an answer or the State court
5
record has been found warranted when “it appears on the face of
the petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Siers
v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S.
1025 (1989); see also McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856; United States
v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000) (habeas petition may
be dismissed where “none of the grounds alleged in the petition
would entitle [the petitioner] to relief”).
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Section 2254(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code gives
the court jurisdiction to entertain a habeas petition as follows:
[A] district court shall entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in
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 of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).3
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the
Court sua sponte at any time.
See Bender v. Williamsport Area
School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986); Louisville & Nashville
3
Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides in relevant part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not
extend to a prisoner unless – . . . He is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
6
Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908); Van Holt v.
Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161, 166 (3d Cir. 1998).
To invoke habeas corpus review by a federal court, the
petitioner must satisfy two jurisdictional requirements:
the
status requirement that the person be “in custody,” and the
substance requirement that the petition challenge the legality of
that custody on the ground that it is in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
See
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989); 1 James S. Liebman &
Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 8.1
(4th ed. 2001).
The Supreme Court has “interpreted the statutory language as
requiring that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the
conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is
filed.”
Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-91; see also Spencer v. Kemna,
523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (custody requirement is satisfied where the
petitioner is incarcerated at the time the petition was filed).
Significantly, a petitioner does not remain “in custody” under a
conviction after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired.
See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 493 (“While we have very liberally
construed the ‘in custody’ requirement for purposes of federal
habeas, we have never extended it to the situation where a habeas
petitioner suffers no present restraint from a conviction”); see
also Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401
(2001); Drakes v. INS, 330 F.3d 600 (3d Cir. 2003).
7
“In making a
custody determination, [federal courts look] to the date that the
habeas petition was filed.”
Leyva v. Williams, 504 F. 3d 357,
363 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Barry v. Bergen County Probation
Dept., 128 F. 3d 152, 159 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Lee v.
Stickman, 357 F. 3d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[W]hat matters for
the ‘in custody’ requirement is whether Lee was in custody at the
time his habeas petition was filed”).
In this case, the affidavit filed by Wood with his Petition
states that, as of November 5, 2009, Petitioner was confined at
Anne Klein Forensic Center.
(Dkt. 1-1 at 3.)
In addition, this
Court’s prior opinions (and the state court records filed in
those proceedings) unequivocally establish that on November 5,
2009, New Jersey released Wood from criminal incarceration on the
four-year sentence imposed on March 5, 2007, and re-committed him
on Krol status, and that, effective April 18, 2010, New Jersey
civilly committed Wood under the civil commitment statute.
Because Wood was not “in custody” as a result of the 2007
conviction at the time he filed this § 2254 Petition challenging
that conviction, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s
challenge to that conviction and will dismiss the Petition for
lack of jurisdiction.4
See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 493; Obado v. New
Jersey, 328 F. 3d 716, 717 (3d Cir. 2003) (“While the ‘in
4
Moreover, coram nobis is not available in a federal court
as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment. See Obado v.
New Jersey, 328 F. 3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003).
8
custody’ requirement is liberally construed for purposes of
habeas corpus, for a federal court to have jurisdiction, a
petitioner must be in custody under the conviction he is
attacking at the time the habeas petition is filed”).
9
B.
Certificate of Appealability
This Court denies a certificate of appealability because
Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
See Miller-
El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Petition for
lack of jurisdiction and denies a certificate of appealability.
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
District Judge
Dated:
November 4
, 2011
10
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?