OZSUSAMLAR v. SHARTLE
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/5/2014. (bdk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
J.T. SHARTLE, Warden,
Civil Action No. 13-7288(NLH)
P.O. Box 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Petitioner pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Mustafa Ozsusamlar, a prisoner confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton, New Jersey, has
filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the calculation of his sentence.
The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is
required to be paid at the time the petition is presented for
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
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
To the extent Petitioner asserts that institutional
officials have refused to provide the certified account
statement, any such assertion must be supported by an affidavit
detailing the circumstances of Petitioner’s request for a
certified account statement and the institutional officials’
refusal to comply, including the dates of such events and the
names of the individuals involved.
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court
will be ordered to administratively terminate the Petition
without prejudice. 1
Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to
re-open within 30 days, by either prepaying the filing fee or
submitting a complete application for leave to proceed in forma
An appropriate Order will be entered.
At Camden, New Jersey
s/Noel L. Hillman
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge
March 5, 2014
Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for
purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is reopened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is
not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was
originally filed timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109
(3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houston mailbox rule to the filing of
federal habeas petitions); Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases and
explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over, and
can re-open, administratively closed cases).
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?