ABRAMOV v. SHARTLE
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/18/2015. (bdk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WARDEN J.T. SHARTLE,
Civ. No. 14-6448 (NLH)
Gidon Abramov, # 63359053
P.O. BOX 420
Fairton, NJ 08320
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Gidon Abramov, a prisoner confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, files
this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging
an institutional disciplinary decision.
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. L. CIV. R. 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).
Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is
Although Petitioner submits an affidavit setting
forth information to establish that he is unable to pay the fees
and costs of the proceedings, Petitioner has failed to supply 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. See L. CIV. R. 81.2(b).
Accordingly, this matter will be administratively
terminated for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement.
Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to reopen by either
paying the filing fee or submitting a complete 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.
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will
be ordered to administratively terminate this action without
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 pauperis.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Dated: March 18, 2015
Camden, New Jersey
_s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
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 submitted timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); 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?