TELFAIR v. LYNCH et al

Filing 5

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 8/30/2017. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TOMMIE H. TELFAIR,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Petitioner,
Civil Action
No. 16-5372 (JBS)

v.
LORETTA LYNCH, et al.,

OPINION
Respondents.

APPEARANCES:
Tommie H. Telfair, Petitioner pro se
#28440-050
Fort Dix
5841
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
East: PO Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge:
1.

Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 signed by pro se Petitioner
Tommie Telfair (hereinafter, “Petitioner”).
2.

Petitioner originally submitted this petition

challenging the “exercise of personal jurisdiction over
Petitioner” and other claims relating to his criminal charges on
September 6, 2016. Docket Entry 1.
3.

The Court administratively terminated the petition on

September 19, 2016 as Petitioner had not paid the filing fee or

submitted an in forma pauperis application. Administrative
Termination Order, Docket Entry 3.
4.

The order further noted that the petition was

identical to a memorandum of law that had been filed in Telfair
v. Lynch, et al., No. 16-5085 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 19, 2016). Id.
at 2 n.1. The Court informed Petitioner that if he intended to
pursue this action as a separate habeas proceeding, he must pay
an additional filing fee. Id. Petitioner was also notified that
this matter would be subject to dismissal as duplicative. Id.
5.

An “amended petition” was received on the same date

the Court’s order was entered. Amended Petition, Docket Entry 2.
6.

On September 21, 2016, the Court received a letter

from Petitioner dated September 15, 2016. The letter indicated
Petitioner was aware of the two pending cases and requested
clarification from the Court. Sept. 15, 2016 Letter, Docket
Entry 4. As the administrative termination order setting forth
Petitioner’s options had only been entered two days prior to
receipt of this letter, the Court took no further action on this
letter.
7.

The Court did not receive any further communication

from Petitioner until the filing fee was paid on July 12, 2017.
8.

Petitioner brings this petition as a pro se litigant.

The Court has an obligation to liberally construe pro se
pleadings and to hold them to less stringent standards than more
2

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d
333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Sept. 19, 2011) (citing
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
9.

Nevertheless, a federal district court must dismiss a

habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the
petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28
U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see
also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers v.
Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S.
1025 (1989).
10.

As this Court noted in its administrative termination

order, the petition is identical to a memorandum of law that
Petitioner filed in his § 2241 proceeding before Judge Wigenton.
The “amended petition” is identical to the § 2241 petition filed
on August 19, 2016 in Civil Action No. 16-5085.
11.

The Court takes judicial notice that Judge Wigenton

dismissed the prior petition as “essentially a time-barred §
2255 motion” on September 20, 2016. Telfair v. Lynch, No. 165085, 2016 WL 5109144, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 20, 2016),
reconsideration denied, No. 16-5085, 2016 WL 7015628 (D.N.J.
Dec. 1, 2016).
12.

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal and denied a

certificate of appealability. Telfair v. Attorney Gen. U.S., et
3

al., No. 16-4417 (3d Cir. Feb. 28, 2017). The United States
Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s request for a writ of
certiorari. Telfair v. Sessions, No. 16-8636 (U.S. May 15,
2017).1
13.

As the instant petition is identical to the one

considered and dismissed by Judge Wigenton, the Court will
dismiss the petition as duplicative.
14.

To the extent a certificate of appealability is

required, the Court declines to issue one as jurists of reason
would not find it debatable that the dismissal as duplicative is
proper. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
15.

An appropriate order follows.

August 30, 2017
Date

1

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

The Court takes judicial notice of these public records.
4