MASSEY v. WARREN et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ORDERED that, within 45 days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Petitioner shall file with the Clerk and serve upon Respondents Petitioner's amended petition and supporting memorandum of law. ORDERED that, within 45 days from the date of Petitioner's service of his amended petition upon Respondents, Respondents shall file with the Clerk and serve upon Petitioner Respondents' amended answer. ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this matter. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/30/2013. (tf, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LLOYD A. MASSEY,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES WARREN et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 11-7261 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the Court’s review
of the submissions made thus far in this action, and it appearing
that:
On June 28, 2011, Petitioner Lloyd A. Massey (“Petitioner”)
submitted for filing a habeas petition (“Petition”), executed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and
sentence rendered by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division (“Law Division”) on September 19, 2002.
Entry No. 1, at 3.
This Court, therefore, directed Respondents
to answer Petitioner’s challenges.
1
See Docket
See Docket Entry No. 5.1
Petitioner has been represented by the New Jersey Office
of Public Defender. While, generally, a notice as to a
litigant’s rights under Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir.
2000), is not issued to represented petitioners, the Court, being
mindful of the complexities suggested by Petitioner’s
application, found it prudent to advise him of his Mason rights.
See Docket Entry No. 3. Petitioner confirmed that he wished to
proceed with his challenges as filed. See Docket Entry No. 4.
On July 11, 2012, Respondents filed their answer.
Docket Entries Nos. 9 to 15.
See
While Respondents’ submission
amounted, in toto, to seven-thousand-seven-hundred-eighty-five
(7,785) pages, see id., Respondents’ answer, with the caption and
certification included, were a mere seven and a half pages.
Docket Entry No. 9.
See
Respondents’ index of the exhibits (which
were the remainder of Respondents’ submission) merely offered the
Court a count from 1 to 105, thus requiring the Court to sift
through thousands of pages, relate them to such docket entries
identified merely as “1a, 1b, 2a, 2b,” and piece together an
argument in Respondents’ favor.
See Docket Entry No. 9-1; see
also Docket Entries Nos. 9 to 15.
Respondents’ unacceptable answer contained neither a
counter-statement of facts underlying Petitioner’s conviction nor
a summary of the procedural developments that took place in the
state forum.
See Docket Entry No. 9.
Moreover, with regard to
each of Petitioner’s challenges, the answer failed to detail any
of the facts or bases for the legal position taken or citations
given.
Rather, Respondents stated, in a conclusory fashion, that
they disagreed with Petitioner’s claims and “incorporate[d] the
arguments set forth” in the prosecutorial briefs presented to the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (“Appellate
Division”).
Respondents also stated that they were in agreement
with the Appellate Division’s rulings, see, e.g., Docket Entry
Page 2
No. 9, at 2 (“[R]espondents rely upon the trial court’s reasoning
as it denied the admission of evidence, and later rejected
[Petitioner’s] motion for a new trial, partly on those
grounds”).2
Petitioner filed his traverse, see Docket Entries Nos. 17
and 18 (re-filed to comply with the Clerk’s directive for redesignate the traverse as
to Answer”).
“Reply to Response” rather than “Reply
The traverse informed this Court about the factual
and procedural background of Petitioner’s claims and stated his
position with clarity.
For the reasons not entirely clear to the Court, Respondents
responded to that filing by docketing a “quasi-reply” of multiple
additional exhibits in the amount of 484 pages, which arrived
accompanied by a single sentence stating that said submission was
“a redacted copy of Exhibit 3.” See Docket Entries Nos. 19 to 21.
That brought the overall volume of Respondents’ exhibits to a
formidable mass of eight-thousand-two-hundred-sixty-nine (8,269)
pages.
2
See also Docket Entry No. 9, at 2-4 (making references to
certain body of unspecified “evidence in question” without any
explanation what that evidence was and why it did not have to be
produced, or to the witness identified as “Karen Simpkins”
without any explanation what Ms. Simpkins testified to and how,
or to certain unspecified “gun parts” and “AK used in this case”
without any explanation as to the nature of these objects and the
correlation – or lack thereof – between them, or to a ruling as
to some unspecified results of an unspecified witness’ polygraph
test without any explanation what these results were, why their
production was sought and why it was rejected.)
Page 3
Respondents’ reply seemingly prompted Petitioner’s filing of
a de facto sur-reply, which was docketed on January 8, 2013,
titled, puzzlingly, “Pre-trial Memorandum.”3
See Docket Entry
No. 22.
While Petitioner here raised only a handful of claims, the
case at bar is both complex and fact-sensitive because the issue
at the heart of this case is a potential witness
misidentification.4
This Court cannot be expected to rule
intelligently on the docket before it.
Nor can the Court be
expected to read thousands of pages, correlate each exhibit to a
particular docket entry, and piece together Respondents’ case.
Moreover, this Court cannot rely on Respondents’ unelaborated
arguments or the position raised before the Appellate Division or
that court’s finding.
Rather, the Court is obligated to examine
those findings, as well as the findings made by the Law Division
3
There are no “trials” in federal habeas matters.
Generally, habeas applications are resolved on the record filed,
albeit the court sitting in federal habeas review has the power
and obligation to conduct evidentiary hearings in appropriate
circumstances.
4
In other words, while both sides are in agreement that a
criminal offense at issue was indeed committed, the key point in
dispute is whether the state court proceedings duly protected
Petitioner’s rights during his trial (and following proceedings)
as a result of which Petitioner was found to be the perpetrator
of that particular offense. The Court of Appeals’ case law
indicates that such matters warrant a particularly careful
attention to the facts. Accord Johnson v. Folino, 705 F.3d 117
(3d Cir. Pa. 2013); cf. Grant v. Lockett, 709 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.
2013); Lambert v. Beard, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19406 (3d Cir.
Sept. 20, 2013); Thomas v. Varner, 428 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2005).
Page 4
and the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and determine whether those
decisions: (a) were “contrary to” the “governing legal principle
set forth by the [United States] Supreme Court” at the time the
state courts rendered their decisions; or (b) “confront[ed] a set
of facts that [were] materially indistinguishable from a decision
of the [United States Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrive[d]
at a [different] result.”
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71,
72 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000).
Hence, Respondents’ argument can be based only on the governing
United States Supreme Court precedent, applied to the specific
facts implicated by each of Petitioner’s challenges, and it is
Respondents – rather than the Court – who are obligated to
establish to the Court’s satisfaction that the decisions on which
Respondents rely were not contrary to that precedent.
Therefore, as submitted, Respondents’ filings are woefully
deficient.
IT IS, therefore, on this 30th day of October 2013,
ORDERED that, within forty-five days from the date of entry
of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Petitioner shall file with
the Clerk and serve upon Respondents Petitioner’s amended
petition and supporting memorandum of law stating each ground
Petitioner wishes to raise in this matter, detailing the factual
predicate and the legal claim asserted in support of each ground.
In addition, Petitioner’s legal position shall reflect on: (a)
Page 5
the arguments offered by Respondents thus far; and (b) the
guidance provided by the Court of Appeals in the decisions
interpreting the governing Supreme Court precedent; and it is
further
ORDERED that, within forty-five days from the date of
Petitioner’s service of his amended petition upon Respondents,
Respondents shall file with the Clerk and serve upon Petitioner
Respondents’ amended answer.
That amended answer shall contain
Respondents’ counter-statement of facts and a summary of
procedural developments that took place in the state courts.
In
addition, that amended answer shall address each of Petitioner’s
grounds by detailing the relevant facts and governing Supreme
Court precedent, and the legal bases for Respondents’ position
why, under the governing test and interpretative guidance
provided by the Court of Appeals, habeas relief is not warranted.
Respondents shall neither make generic arguments of their
disagreement with Petitioner (or their agreement with the
favorable findings made by state courts) nor raise any arguments
based on state law.
In the event Respondents want to rely on
federal law arguments raised during state proceedings,
Respondents shall expressly detail the same, not asserting any
“incorporation by reference” response.
Respondents’ failure to
comply with these requirements will be addressed, if necessary.
“The Court stresses that it takes its obligations in this and
Page 6
every action seriously, and so should Respondents,” Williams v.
Ricci, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51959, at *6-7 (D.N.J. May 13,
2011); and it is further
ORDERED that all affirmative defenses, if any, shall be
raised in Respondents’ amended answer in addition to the defenses
addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claims; and it is further
ORDERED that the amended answer shall include a proper index
of Respondents’ exhibits.
Such index shall refer to each exhibit
as docketed by Respondents in the instant matter, e.g., “Docket
Entry No. 9-5” (not “RA4" or “Exhibit D”), and the same mode of
citation shall be utilized for the purposes of all statements and
quotations made in Respondents’ amended answer.
In the event
the 8,269 pages of the exhibits docketed thus far in conjunction
with Respondents’ original answer and as a de facto reply did not
include the material relied upon by Respondents in their amended
answer, Respondents shall docket that material jointly with their
amended answer.
The Court stresses that, in light of the sheer
volume of Respondents’ exhibits, Respondents’ index and
references to the relevant exhibits and the particular text
within each exhibit should be made “user-friendly,” accord Orange
Unified Sch. Dist. v. C.K., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92423, at *11
(C.D. Cal. June 4, 2012) (“Counsel is advised to submit the
[required material] in a logical, user-friendly manner and to
provide an index”); and it is further
Page 7
ORDERED that Respondents shall file their amended answer,
the proper index of their exhibits and the additional exhibits,
if any, electronically.
No document shall be filed in hard copy
in this matter unless Respondents seek and obtain this Court’s
order allowing Respondents such filing; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondents shall serve their amended answer,
the proper index of their exhibits and the additional exhibits,
if any, upon Petitioner; and it is further
ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of
Petitioner’s receipt of the amended answer, Petitioner shall file
and serve his traverse to the amended answer; and it is further
ORDERED that, in the event Respondents, being served with
Petitioner’s traverse, develop a bona fide belief that the filing
of a reply is warranted, Respondents shall make a formal
application seeking the same.
Such application shall be made
within thirty days from the date of Respondents’ receipt of the
traverse.
In the event the Clerk receives no such application,
Respondents’ opportunity to file a sur-reply will be deemed
conclusively waived;5 and it is further
ORDERED that, within ten days of Petitioner’s release, be it
on parole or otherwise, Respondents shall file a written notice
of the same with the Clerk; and it is further
5
If Respondents are granted leave to reply, Petitioner
would be allowed an opportunity to file his sur-reply.
Page 8
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this
matter for the period of re-briefing required by the terms of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order by making a new and separate
entry on the docket reading, “CIVIL CASE ADMINISTRATIVELY
TERMINATED SUBJECT TO REOPENING UPON COMPLETION OF RE-BRIEFING.
ADMINISTRATIVE TERMINATION IS NOT A DISMISSAL, AND NO STATEMENT
IN THIS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED A CONCLUSIVE
DISPOSITION ON THE MERITS.
THE COURT RETAINS ITS JURISDICTION
OVER THIS MATTER AND RESERVES ITS FINAL DETERMINATION.”6 ; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Petitioner and Respondents by means of electronic
delivery; and it finally
ORDERED that, within ten business days from the date of the
Clerk’s service of this Memorandum Opinion and Order Petitioner
6
See Williams, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177857, at *69 (“The
Clerk will be directed to administratively terminate this matter;
the Court will order reopening of this action upon receipt of
Respondents’ answer to Petitioner’s remaining claims, and
Petitioner’s filing of his traverse”); see also Papotto v.
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19660, at
*26 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2013)(“[A]dministrative closings do not
end the proceeding. Rather, they are a practical tool used by
courts to prune overgrown dockets.”)
Page 9
and Respondents shall file their respective notices acknowledging
their receipt of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
Page 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?