EDWARDS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/23/2014. (nz, )N.M.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RENE D. EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 14-2802(NLH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Rene D. Edwards
Southern State Correctional Facility
4295 Route 47
Delmont, NJ 08314
Petitioner pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Rene D. Edwards, a prisoner confined at Southern
State Correctional Facility in Delmont, New Jersey, has filed a
Petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, challenging an unspecified conviction.
As set forth
below, the Petition and accompanying Application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis are deficient in several respects.
Accordingly, this matter will be administratively terminated,
and Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open by
submitting a complete amended petition and application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
A.
The Form of Petition
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2:
Unless prepared by counsel, petitions to this Court
for a writ of habeas corpus ... shall be in writing
(legibly handwritten in ink or typewritten), signed by
the petitioner or movant, on forms supplied by the
Clerk.
L.Civ.R. 81.2(a).
Petitioner did not use the habeas form
supplied by the Clerk for Section 2254 petitions, i.e., “AO241
(modified): DNJ-Habeas-008 (Rev. 01-2014).”
Moreover, the
Petition is not signed, nor does it identify the challenged
conviction.
B.
The Proper Respondent
Petitioner has named as Respondents Camden County, the
State of New Jersey, and the Attorney General of the State of
New Jersey.
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 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
2
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, to the extent Petitioner is presently confined
pursuant to a state conviction, none of the named Respondents is
a proper respondent.
Instead, the warden of the facility where
Petitioner is held is an indispensable party respondent, for
want of whose presence the Petition may not proceed.
C.
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
3
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), but he did
submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
However, that application is deficient in that the accompanying
institutional account statements are not certified by an
authorized officer of the institution as required by Local Civil
Rule 81.2(b).
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’
4
refusal to comply, including the dates of such events and the
names of the individuals involved.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without
prejudice and 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 submitting a complete, signed amended petition and by
either prepaying the filing fee or submitting a complete
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
At Camden, New Jersey
Dated:
s/Noel L. Hillman
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge
June 23, 2014
1
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).
5
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?