MEJIA v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATIONS & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/18/16. (jbk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATIONS
:
& CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
MIGUEL MEJIA,
Civ. No. 16-4270 (NLH)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Miguel Mejia, # 56028-054
F.C.I. Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Miguel Mejia, 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
imposition of a detainer against him.
I.
NATURE OF THE FILING
The Court notes that Petitioner cites both 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388,
91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), as bases for his
submission. (Pet. 2, ECF No. 1).
However, claims under § 1983
and Bivens arise when a litigant alleges constitutional
violations by state and federal actors.
Here, the instant
Petition does not allege any constitutional violations, and
instead challenges the imposition of a detainer which Petitioner
states precludes him from participating in certain prison
programs. Id.
Because Petitioner is challenging solely the validity of a
detainer lodged against him, a habeas corpus petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is an appropriate mechanism. See Henry v.
Chertoff, 317 F. App'x 178, 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (construing
submission challenging an immigration detainer as a habeas
petition); see also, e.g., Holmes v. Thomas, No. 4:13-CV-1624,
2014 WL 691395, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2014) (“[A] habeas
corpus petition is the appropriate procedure under which to
challenge the validity of a detainer[.]”) (citations omitted);
see also United States v. Saunders, No. 99-590(01), 2016 WL
545226, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2016) (construing a submission
challenging an unexecuted federal parole violator
warrant/detainer as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241); Sultry v. DeRosa, No. 04-5193, 2005 WL
2600240, at *1-2 (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2005) (“This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction under § 2241 to consider the instant
Petition because Sultry seeks not to vacate or correct his
sentence, but to challenge the execution of the sentence based
on the allegedly illegal detainer.”) (citing Barden v. Keohane,
2
921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3d Cir. 1991); 2 JAMES S. LIEBMAN & RANDY
HERTZ, FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PRACTICE
1998)).
AND
PROCEDURE § 41.2b (3rd ed.
Because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee
requirement for a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as
explained below, the Court makes no determination as to the
merits of the Petition at this time.
II.
FILING FEE
Having construed the submission as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus, the Court notes that the filing fee for such a
submission 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).
3
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 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.
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.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will
be ordered to administratively terminate this action without
prejudice. 1
Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open
1
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.
4
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: July 18, 2016
At Camden, New Jersey
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).
5
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?