ROUDABUSH v. HOLLINGSWORTH

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/8/2015. (TH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN J. HOLLINGSWORTH,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
JAMES L. ROUDABUSH, JR.,

Civ. No. 15-8249 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
James L. Roudabush, # R82038-083
F.C.I. Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner James L. Roudabush, a prisoner confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, files
this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging
the execution of his sentence.
I.

FILING FEE

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. 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).

Additionally,

although Petitioner submitted an affidavit stating he is unable
to pay the fee (ECF No. 1-1), he did not submit 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. 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.
II.

FORM OF PETITION

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2, unless prepared by
counsel, a petition for writ of habeas corpus must be submitted
using forms supplied by the Clerk of the Court. See L.CIV.R.
82.1(a).

In this case, Petitioner is proceeding pro se and

failed to utilize the court-provided forms.

Accordingly, in the

event he chooses to apply to reopen this case, and satisfies the
filing fee by either paying the $5 filing fee or by submitting a
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner
will be required to submit an Amended Petition using the courtprovided forms. See AO 242 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (12/11).
Moreover, the Petition in this case fails to substantially
follow the content of the form supplied by the Clerk and, as
such, does not comport with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, (amended Dec. 1, 2004), made applicable to §
2241 petitions through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules.

Significantly, the Petition does not indicate whether Petitioner
has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his
claims.

Thus, requiring Petitioner to resubmit his Petition on

Court-provided forms will assist him, and the Court, in
determining the appropriateness of a petition under § 2241.
Finally, the Court notes that in his Petition, Petitioner
states that the “[Federal Bureau of Prisons] did score [him]
incorrectly with an express intent to punish[;]” (Pet. 5, ECF
No. 1), and that his rights under the 14th, 5th, and 6th
Amendments, as well as the “Due Process Clause,” “Privileges and
Immunities Clause,” and the “Equal Protection Clause” have been
violated (Pet. 6, ECF No. 1).

The Court makes no findings as to

the merits of Petitioner’s claims in the context of this action;
however, the Court notes that, typically, these types of claims
are appropriately brought in the context of a civil rights
action. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir.
2002).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will
be ordered to administratively terminate this action without
prejudice. 1

1

Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open

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

within 45 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.

___s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge

Dated: December 8, 2015
At Camden, New Jersey

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).