RODRIGUEZ-RAMOS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/24/2014. (nz, )n.m.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 14-3942(NLH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Jose Luis Rodriguez-Ramos
F.C.I. Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Jose Luis Rodriguez-Ramos, a prisoner confined
at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey,
has filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, seeking an order permitting his withdrawal from
the literacy program and for good time credits.
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.
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.
2
In addition, the Petition appears incomplete, as the first
page, numbered (1), concludes with the following partial
sentence, “Petitioner respectfully submits the within instant
MOTION REQUESTING WITHDRAWL and avers to the following STATEMENT
OF FACTS:” following which are several exhibits, but no
statement of facts.
Moreover, the Petition is not signed.
CONCLUSION
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, accompanied by 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 24, 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).
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?