BLANK v. D'ILIO et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM ORDER, Denying without prejudice 20 Motion for Order Expanding Habeas Record; Petitioner is advised to consult with his attorney regarding his issues; within 30 days of the date of this Order, counsel may submit an amended supplemental reply, etc. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/13/17. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
CHRISTOPHER H. BLANK,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 15-3596 (NLH)
:
v.
:
MEMORANDUM ORDER
:
STEPHEN M. D'ILIO,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Christopher H. Blank, #599537/987398B
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Petitioner Pro se
Rocco C. Cipparone , Jr.
Law Office Of Rocco C. Cipparone, Jr.
203-205 Black Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
Counsel for Petitioner
Mario C. Formica
Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office
4997 Unami Boulevard
Mays Landing, NJ 08201
Counsel for Respondent

HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Christopher H. Blank (“Petitioner”), a prisoner
currently confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New
Jersey, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(ECF No. 1.)

IT APPEARING THAT:
1. On June 18, 2015, this Court entered an Order requiring
Respondent to file an answer to the Petition in this matter.
(ECF No. 2.)
2. On July 20, 2015, Respondent filed his Answer. (ECF No.
4.)

Upon review of that Answer, the Court determined that

Respondent had failed to address Petitioner’s argument that two
of the jurors had direct connections to the State’s witnesses
and therefore ordered a supplemental answer.

(ECF No. 9.)

Respondent filed their Supplemental Answer on May 11, 2016.
(ECF No. 10.)
3.

The Court thereafter appointed counsel for Petitioner

for the limited purpose of submitting a reply to the State’s
Supplemental Answer, which counsel did on July 14, 2016.

(ECF

No. 17.)
4.

On September 15, 2016, the Court received several pro

se filings from Petitioner, including a Supplemental Reply and a
Motion to Expand the Record.

(ECF Nos. 18-20.)

In his cover

letter, Petitioner states that he was not aware that counsel had
been appointed.

(ECF No. 19.)

Upon learning that counsel had

been appointed and had submitted a Supplemental Reply on his
behalf, Petitioner nevertheless decided to also submit the
documents he had prepared.

(Id.)

Petitioner requests that the

Court consider his submissions as though they were attached to
his appointed attorney’s Supplemental Reply.
5.

(Id.)

The Court will deny Petitioner’s request and motion to

expand the record at this time.

The Court appointed counsel for

the express purpose of filing of supplemental reply to
streamline this matter and ensure that the parties’ positions
were concisely and completely presented for this Court’s
consideration.

However, to ensure that any and all relevant and

appropriate arguments are presented, the Court will grant
Petitioner 30 days to consult with his attorney and, should
counsel deem appropriate, counsel may file an amended
supplemental reply.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS on this

13th

day of

April

, 2017,

ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to consider his pro se
submissions and his Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 20) are
DENIED without prejudice; Petitioner is advised to consult with
his attorney regarding his issues; within 30 days of the date of
this Order, counsel may submit an amended supplemental reply;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of
this Order upon Petitioner via regular mail.

At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge