MANFREDI v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
Filing
6
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/13/12. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KEITH MANFREDI,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-1905 (RMB)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
KEITH MANFREDI, Petitioner Pro Se
#75325-053
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
BUMB, District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Keith
Manfredi’s motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 2),
filed on or about May 14, 2012, with respect to his petition for
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
This motion is
decided without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78.
For
reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment
will be denied.
I.
DISCUSSION
On or about March 28, 2012, Petitioner, Keith Manfredi,
filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, seeking his immediate release from prison and challenging
a 2011 prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss
of good conduct time.
Principally, Petitioner asserts that he
was denied fundamental due process with respect to his
disciplinary proceeding, namely, failure to provide timely notice
of the charges and the hearing, and the denial of an opportunity
to present witnesses and documentary evidence.
Petitioner paid
the filing fee in this matter on April 9, 2012.
On or about May 14, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for
summary judgment.
At the time that Petitioner filed his motion,
this Court had not yet issued an Order directing the Respondents
to file an answer to the petition together with the relevant
records.
Thus, the Respondent Government has not filed an answer
to the habeas petition, and this Court does not have the relevant
record necessary to determine the merits of Petitioner’s claim
for habeas relief.
Summary judgment is appropriate in a habeas proceeding, as
in other cases, when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
As demonstrated above, there is no response from the
Respondents or the relevant administrative record necessary to
determine whether there is an absence of a genuine issue of
2
material fact in this case.
Consequently, where there has been
no demonstration that material facts are not in dispute in this
case, it is premature to decide Petitioner’s motion for summary
judgment in his favor.
Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to
summary judgment at this time, and his motion will be denied
without prejudice accordingly.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that
Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is premature and should
be denied without prejudice at this time.
An appropriate Order
follows.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
DATED: July 13, 2012
3
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?