HUGO v. SAVAGE
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED W/OUT PREJUDICE, as unexhausted. The Clerk shall serve Judge William C. Todd III w/ this Order; the Attorney General of NJ w/ this Order/all other docs; Barbara S. Lieberman, Esq. w/ this Order; the person who submitted this application w/ this Order, etc. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 10/18/2012. (drw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HELEN RUTH HUGO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHELE SAVAGE,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-1843 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon the Clerk’s receipt of
a habeas petition, executed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and it
appearing that:
1.
The submission is executed in the name of Helen Ruth Hugo
(“Hugo”) and fashioned as a submission produced pro se.
See,
generally, Docket Entry No. 1. However, the submission, while
having the signature reading “Helen Hugo,” bears no date, see
id. at 9, and the body of the main document, styled as a
habeas petition, refers to Hugo not as “Petitioner” or “I/me,”
but as “Helen Hugo” or “HH.” See, generally, Docket Entry No.
1.
Moreover,
the
submission
designates
Hugo’s
address
“Meadowview Nursing Home, 7234 Belmont Ave[nue,] Mays Landing,
NJ 08330.”
2.
The
submission
individual
who
indicates
used
to
that
reside
Hugo
at
apartment 108, Minotola, New Jersey.
1, at 4.
114
is
an
West
81-year-old
Arctic
Ave,
See Docket Entry No. 1-
It appears that Hugo caught the eye of the State’s
Adult Protective Services after a certain disarray in her
financial affairs and her failure to consume her medications
came to light. See, generally, Docket Entry No. 1-1. It also
appears that this development caused Hugo to be taken into the
custody of the State, upon the entry of an order issued by
Judge William C. Todd III (“Judge Todd”) of the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Probate Part.
Pursuant to Judge Todd’s order,
a guardian and legal counsel were appointed to Hugo (to assist
her in administration of her affairs and to represent her in
her upcoming competency and commitment hearing),1 and Hugo was
placed in Meadowview Nursing Home.
Entries Nos. 1 and 1-1.
See, generally, Docket
It also appears that Hugo’s niece,
who apparently had her power of attorney (“POA”) since 2008,
lost her POA authority upon the entry of Judge Todd’s order,
thereby losing her contact with Hugo. See Docket Entry No. 11.
Subsequently, Hugo’s retained legal counsel who conveyed
to the State the niece’s desire to curtail Hugo’s medication
at Meadowview but noted that his client was “not particularly
averse to the idea of someone else handling [Hugo’s] financial
affairs.”
Docket Entry No. 1-1, at 1-3, but see Docket Entry
No. 1-4 (indicating that, later on, Hugo’s niece was ordered
to account for her administration of Hugo’s finances, and it
1
See Docket Entry No. 2 (verifying the same).
Page 2 of
9
was discovered that the niece’s administration of her aunt’s
financial affairs lacked bookkeeping records).
3.
The voluminous body of exhibits attached to the document
styled as the petition includes copies of legal and private
correspondences, Judge Todd’s orders (bearing hand-written
notations of some person who was expressing his/her opinions
that Judge Todd’s orders were legally deficient), multitude of
photos (of, presumably, Hugo and her apartment), advertisement
of a certain medical alert service that could be employed at
one’s home, invoices of certain purchases, Hugo’s blank check,
the outdated POA, inventory of Hugo’s possessions, letter from
a person who appear to be another resident of Meadowview, some
medical records, a periodical dedicated to the issues of elder
care,
an
ethics
complaint,
Hugo’s
recent
psychiatric
evaluation (conducted, seemingly, upon Judge Todd’s order in
preparation for Hugo’s competency/commitment hearing), etc.2
See Dockets Entries Nos. 1-1 to 1-9.
4.
The
key
document,
styled
as
Hugo’s
petition,
seeks
the
following remedy from this Court: “[r]elease Helen Hugo from
2
Additional documents, styled as “exhibits” in support of
the Petition at bar, were later filed by the person who commenced
this action; these filings too were made on behalf of Hugo. See
Docket Entries Nos. 3 and 4. While the Court has no means to
determine the filer’s true identity (and, thus, the Court can
neither rule out that these filings were made by Hugo’s niece nor
establish the same with any degree of certainty), it appears that
Hugo was not the individual who made these filings.
Page 3 of
9
the custody & control of Atlantic County and Meadowview
Nursing Home.”
5.
Docket Entry No. 1, at 8.
The Court surmises, from the aforementioned record, that the
submission at bar: (a) attempts to convince this Court that
Judge Todd’s selections of guardians and/or counsel for Hugo
were imperfect, and that Hugo would be better if she were
released into the care and custody of her niece who used to
have POA from Hugo; and (b) speculates that, in the event
Judge Todd orders Hugo’s civil commitment, such order might be
unconstitutional because the draftor of the submission at bar
is
of
the
opinion
that
Judge
Todd’s
prior
orders
were
deficient, either constitutionally or due to operation of
certain state law provisions.
See Docket Entries Nos. 1 and
1-1 to 1-9.
6.
If
– in light of: (a) the language utilized in the petition,
(b) the overall style of the submission, and (c) the selfevident inconsistency in addresses – this Court were to
hypothesize that a certain third party executed the submission
at bar (falsely presenting it as Hugo’s own submission),3 then
3
While the submission at bar indicates that Hugo’s recent
affairs caused involvement of numerous legal counsel, this Court
has no reason to presume that any legal counsel prepared the
documents at bar, falsely representing that these documents were
prepared by Hugo herself. Rather, it appears that the submission
at bar was prepared by a layperson having no legal training, who
might or might not have a relationship to Hugo.
Page 4 of
9
this matter is subject to dismissal for lack of standing.4
Indeed, this submission can be executed only by Hugo herself
or by Hugo’s legal guardian acting through Hugo’s counsel.
Accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) (applying to civil matters
analogous, in their gist, to this habeas action); see also
Powell v. Symons, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467 (3d Cir. Mar. 30,
2012) (discussing the same).
7.
Alternatively, if this Court were to hypothesize that Hugo
herself executed the Petition at bar, her Petition is subject
to dismissal, without prejudice, as unexhausted.
8.
Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.§ 2254 (1977).
4
This Court finds itself ethically obligated to direct
service of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Judge Todd (for
informational purposes only) and upon the Office of Attorney
General for the State of New Jersey (for the agency’s independent
evaluation of whether the submission at bar is indicative of
wrongful undertaking that could cause harm to Hugo’s welfare or
property). See Wright v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
15237, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007) (“While reviewing and
researching the instant Petition, it became clear to this Court
that a document attached to the Petition and relied upon by the
petitioner had questionable authenticity. . . . It is not the
Court's function to pursue the matter, but it is the duty of the
Court to report such suspicious activity to the proper
governmental agency for their independent analysis”); accord New
Jersey Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6(b)
(imposing the obligation to “reveal [the] information [received
in the course of litigation] to the proper authorities [in order]
to prevent . . . another person from committing a criminal,
illegal or fraudulent act that . . . is likely to result in death
or substantial bodily harm or substantial injury to the financial
interest or property of another”).
Page 5 of
9
Rule 4 provides, in relevant part, that, “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,
the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to
notify the petitioner.
Petition may be dismissed without
review of an answer ‘when the petition is frivolous, or
obviously lacking in merit, or where . . . the necessary facts
can be determined from the petition itself.” Allen v. Perini,
424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (reflecting on the Rule).
9.
Generally,
“federal
habeas
corpus
is
substantially
a
post-conviction remedy.” Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d 437, 441
(3d Cir. 1975).
However, federal district courts do have
limited jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), to issue
a writ of habeas corpus to pre-trial detainees or convicted
individuals who did not complete their appellate processes.
See id.
should
That being said, “jurisdiction without exhaustion
not
be
exercised
at
the
pre-trial
extraordinary circumstances are present.”
stage
unless
Id. at 443; see
also Calihan v. Superior Court, 158 F. App’x 807 (9th Cir.
2005) (absent special circumstances, “[p]rinciples of comity
and
federalism”
require
abstention
pre-conviction habeas challenges).
from
deciding
It is only when a habeas
petitioner faces the threat of suffering irreparable harm that
Page 6 of
9
federal
court
intervention
could
be
justified.5
See
Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 482 (1965); Coruzzi v.
State of N.J., 705 F.2d 688, 690 (3d Cir. 1983).
Indeed, the
habeas corpus remedy afforded to state inmates is not meant to
operate as an invitation “to argue state law issues pre-trial
in a federal forum.”
Green v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8735, 1993 WL 239311 *3 (E.D. Pa. June
28, 1993).
10.
There is nothing in the Petition at bar to suggest that Hugo
is unable to litigate the merits of her present claims through
her guardian, and – if unsatisfied with the outcome of that
hearing – to present her claims to the New Jersey appellate
courts.
The
record
clearly
indicates
that
she
has
been
provided with guardian(s) and legal counsel, and Judge Todd’s
orders (as well as Hugo’s recent extensive medical evaluation)
indicate that Hugo’s situation has been given not only every
5
Cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1981) (holding that
principles of federalism and comity require district courts to
abstain from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances); Port Auth. Police Benevolent
Assoc., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. Police Dep't., 973
F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1992) (same). The test for federal court
abstention under Younger is whether "(1) there are ongoing state
proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state
proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the
state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal
claims." Id. Since the State has important interest in ensuring
Hugo’s welfare, and there are ongoing state proceedings that
allow Hugo full access to protections of law, this Court is
obligated to abstain within the meaning of the Younger test.
Page 7 of
9
protection of law but also a thoughtful and careful review by
the state courts and experts retained for the purposes of
state proceedings.
Meanwhile, the submission at bar invites
this Court to second-guess the state court’s decisions.
Court declines to do so.
The
Thus, the Petition at bar will be
dismissed, without prejudice, as facially unexhausted.
IT IS, therefore, on this 18th day of October 2012,
ORDERED that the submission at bar, Docket Entry No. 1, is
dismissed without prejudice, as unexhausted; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve, by regular U.S. mail, a
copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Judge William C.
Todd III, at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division,
Probate Part, Atlantic County, 1201 Bacharach Boulevard, Atlantic
City, New Jersey 08401, accompanying such service with a notation
reading, “SERVICE EXECUTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY IN
CONNECTION WITH In Re HELEN HUGO, NJ SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET No.
106733”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve, by regular U.S. mail, a
copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, as well as copies of all
documents docketed in this matter, upon the Office of the Attorney
General for the State of New Jersey, accompanying such service with
a notation reading, “SERVICE EXECUTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY TO ALLOW FOR THE AGENCY’S INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE
DOCUMENTS INCLUDED”; and further
Page 8 of
9
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve, by regular U.S. mail, a
copy
of
this
Memorandum
Opinion
and
Order
upon
Barbara
S.
Lieberman, Esq., an attorney appointed to act as Hugo’s guardian,
accompanying
such
service
with
a
notation
reading,
“SERVICE
EXECUTED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY”; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve, by regular U.S. mail, this
Memorandum Opinion and Order upon the person who submitted the
instant application, addressing it “TO THE RESIDENT OF 7234 BELMONT
AVENUE, MAYS LANDING, NEW JERSEY 08330,” and close the file on this
matter.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB,
United States District Judge
Page 9 of
9
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?