JONES v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/30/2013. (bdk, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BYRON K. JONES, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 13-0132 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Petitioner pro se
Byron K. Jones, Jr.
Eastern State Prison
Lock Bag R
Rahway, NJ 07065
BUMB, District Judge
Petitioner Byron K. Jones, Jr., a convicted and sentenced
prisoner confined at Eastern State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey,
has filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction on drug distribution
charges.
The Filing Fee
The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
$5.00.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is

required to be paid at the time the petition is presented for
filing.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2(b), whenever a

prisoner submits a petition for writ of habeas and seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis, that petitioner must submit (a) an

affidavit setting forth information which establishes that the
petitioner is unable to pay the fees and costs of the
proceedings, and (b) a certification signed by an authorized
officer of the institution certifying (1) the amount presently on
deposit in the prisoner’s prison account and, (2) the greatest
amount on deposit in the prisoners institutional account during
the six-month period prior to the date of the certification.

If

the institutional account of the petitioner exceeds $200, the
petitioner shall not be considered eligible to proceed in forma
pauperis.

Local Civil Rule 81.2(c).

Petitioner did not prepay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas
petition as required by Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), nor did
Petitioner submit an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.

Accordingly, this action will be administratively

terminated for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirements.
The Respondent
Petitioner has named as Respondents the State of New Jersey
and the Attorney General of New Jersey.

Petitioner has not

named, as a Respondent, the administrator of Eastern State
Prison.
Among other things, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 requires the petition
for a writ of habeas corpus to allege “the name of the person who
has custody over [the petitioner].”

See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243

(“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the

2

person having custody of the person detained.”).

“[T]hese

provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has
the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to
produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he
may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the
contrary.”

Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 5674, 574 (1885) (emphasis

added).
In accord with the statutory language and Wales’
immediate custodian rule, longstanding practice
confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical
confinement - “core challenges” - the default rule is
that the proper respondent is the warden of the
facility where the prisoner is being held, not the
Attorney General or some other remote supervisory
official.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-436 (2004) (citations
omitted).
Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts provides similar guidance.
(a) Current Custody: Naming the Respondent. If the
petitioner is currently in custody under a state-court
judgment, the petition must name as respondent the
state officer who has custody.
Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the warden of
the facility where the petitioner is held is an indispensable
party respondent, for want of whose presence the petition may not
proceed.

Under the circumstances of this case, where Petitioner

is presently confined pursuant to the challenged conviction,

3

neither the State of New Jersey, nor the Attorney General of New
Jersey is a proper respondent.

Accordingly, Petitioner will be

granted leave to apply to re-open and to file an amended petition
naming a proper respondent.
This Court makes no finding as to the timeliness of the
Petition as filed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will
be ordered to administratively terminate the Petition without
prejudice.

Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open

within 30 days, by (1) submitting an amended petition naming a
proper respondent and (2) either prepaying the filing fee or
submitting a complete application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
Renée Marie Bumb
United States District Judge
Dated: January 30, 2013

4