JACKSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/13/2017. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
TIMOTHY JACKSON,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:

Civ. No. 17-1992 (NLH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

Petitioner Timothy Jackson (“Petitioner”) has filed a

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 before this Court. (ECF No. 1.)
2.

Petitioner only states that he is “requesting

disposition of Federal warrant lodged against [him] in the
above-referenced matter . . . .Please understand that this
detainer is inhibiting [him] from receiving a lower custody
status that would allow [him] access to programs necessary to
[his] rehabilitation.”
3.

(Id.)

Petitioner attaches a copy of the detainer to his

Petition, which was issued by the United States Marshals
Service, based on an arrest warrant from the Southern District
of New York, for violation of supervised release.
4.

(Id.)

Pursuant to Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases, applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b),

“[t]he

petition must: (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to
the petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground….”
Here, Petitioner has failed to specify his grounds for relief and
state the facts supporting said grounds.

While he

requests

“disposition” of the warrant, it is unclear precisely what action
Petitioner is seeking from this Court.

As such, the Court will

require Petitioner to submit an amended petition which complies
with Rule 2(c).
5.

If Petitioner elects to submit an amended petition, he

must also meet the filing fee requirement.

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).
Here, 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.
6.

In light of the foregoing, the Court will

administratively terminate this matter.1

If Petitioner wishes to

re-open the instant matter, he must submit: (1) an amended
petition which clearly outlines his grounds for relief and the
facts supporting said grounds; AND (2) either a complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis or the $5 filing fee.
7.

An appropriate order follows.

Dated: July 13, 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