RULLAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/21/2015. (bdk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Civ. No. 15-140 (NLH)
Anthony Rullan, # 361599
South Woods State Prison
215 Burlington Road, South
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
On or about January 8, 2015, Petitioner Anthony Rullan, a
prisoner confined at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New
Jersey, filed this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging his 2007 New Jersey state court conviction. (ECF No.
On March 31, 2015, the Court administratively terminated
this case for failure to either pay the filing fee or submit a
complete in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 4).
about May 1, 2015, Petitioner submitted a new in forma pauperis
application (ECF No. 5) and the case was reopened for review by
a judicial officer.
THE NEW IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
Although Petitioner provides a six-month account statement,
it is not certified by a prison official.
In fact, the request
form which Petitioner submits along with his account statement
bears a notation that reads, “Please see attached copy of 6
month statement w/out certification.” (In Forma Pauperis App. 6,
ECF No. 5).
It is unclear from the request form who was the
prison staff member who received Petitioner’s request and wrote
The Court takes this opportunity to again remind Petitioner
that 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).
As explained above, 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 which included a certification signed
by an authorized officer of the institution as required by Local
Civil Rule 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, which includes a
certification signed 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'
refusal to comply, including the dates of such events and the
names of the individuals involved.
THE § 2254 PETITION
The Court has also reviewed Petitioner’s initial Petition
(ECF No. 1) and notes that it is not submitted on forms supplied
by the Clerk of the Court for section 2254 petitions. See AO 241
(modified): DNJ-Habeas-008 (Rev.01-2014).
Local Civil Rule
81.2(a) requires use of the Court’s form unless the petition is
prepared by counsel.
Here, Petitioner is proceeding pro se and
did not use the appropriate forms.
Accordingly, in the event Petitioner chooses to submit a
request to reopen this case, he shall be required to resubmit
the Petition using the forms supplied to him by the Clerk of the
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.
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).
In the event Petitioner requests that the Court reopen his case,
he is required to resubmit his Petition using the forms supplied
to him by the Clerk of the Court.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
____s/ Noel L. Hillman____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
Dated: July 21, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey
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?