HUNT v. D'ILIO
Filing
6
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/9/2015. (tf, n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
GARDELL HUNT,
Petitioner,
v.
STEPHEN D’ILIO, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 14-6024(RMB)
OPINION
BUMB, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s
submission of an Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF
No. 5.) Petitioner is a state prisoner confined in New Jersey
State Prison, in Trenton, New Jersey. (Id. at 1.) Pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, this Court must examine the petition
and, if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, dismiss
the petition and direct the Clerk to notify the petitioner.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides:
1
The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a
circuit judge, or a district court shall
entertain an application for a writ of
habeas corpus in behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.
For Ground One of the Amended Petition, Petitioner stated:
“[w]hether the admission of evidence of Hunt’s prior drug
dealing activities to show motive was proper pursuant to
N.J.R.E. 404(B) and under the standard articulated in State v.
Cofield.” (Amended Pet., ECF No. 5 at 6.) For Ground Two of the
Amended Petition, Petitioner stated:
Whether, even assuming the evidence of
Hunt’s prior drug dealing activities for
purposes of showing motive were proper
pursuant to N.J.R.E. 404(B) and under the
Cofield standard, such evidence should have
been precluded because the trial court and
the Appellate Division both made the same
fundamental error when they each determined
that certain prior-wrongs evidence was
admissible pursuant to N.J.R.E. 404(B) and
stopped there.
(Id. at 7.)
For Ground Three of his Amended Petition, Petitioner
stated:
Whether the trial court, in making a
determination of the admissibility of priorwrongs evidence pursuant to N.J.R.E. 404(B)
and under the fourth prong of the Cofield
test, should have utilized the more exacting
admissibility standard articulated in State
v. Reddish rather than the more lenient
admissibility standard articulated in
2
N.J.R.E. 403 and State v. Hernandez. The
appeal filed by Petitioner was denied by the
Court.
(Id. at 7.)
The Amended Petition contains claims solely of
misapplication of state law in Petitioner’s state court
proceedings. State law claims are not cognizable in federal
review. “[I]t is well established that a state court’s
misapplication of its own law does not generally raise a
constitutional claim.” Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d 400, 414 (3d Cir.
1997) (citation omitted); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68
(1991) (“it is not the province of a federal habeas court to
reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.”)
The Amended Petition will be dismissed without prejudice in the
accompanying Order. Plaintiff will be given thirty days to file
an Amended Petition that includes only exhausted federal claims.
s/Renee Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
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?