SANCHEZ v. WARDEN ORTIZ

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/31/2017. (rtm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN ORTIZ,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
JAIME SANCHEZ,

Civ. No. 17-274 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Jaime Sanchez
06704-104
Fort Dix
5811 West
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
East: P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Jaime Sanchez, a prisoner confined at Federal
Correctional Institution Fort Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey, files
this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging
his denial of a transfer to home confinement for medical
reasons.
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) and instead
submits an in forma pauperis application.

Petitioner’s in forma

pauperis application includes a certification signed by a prison
official stating that the greatest amount on deposit in
Petitioner’s account during the six-month period prior to the
date of the certification is $588.86.

Thus, Petitioner’s

institutional account exceeded $200 and he is not eligible to
proceed in forma pauperis. L. CIV. R. 81.2(c).
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 paying
the filing fee.
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

within 30 days, by prepaying the filing fee.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

Dated: January 31, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

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).
1