MURPHY v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/5/2017. (TH, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 17-2960 (NLH)
East Jersey State Prison
1100 Woodbridge Rd.
Rahway, NJ 07065
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Pro Se Petitioner Tysheim Murphy files this Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which
appears to challenge his 2010 New Jersey state court conviction
for various offenses.
(ECF No. 1.)
The Petition is deficient
for the following reasons.
Section 2254 Rules
Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, among other
requirements, the petition must: “(1) specify all the grounds
for relief available to the petitioner; [and] (2) state the
facts supporting each ground….”
Here, Petitioner merely
attaches a list of the grounds that were raised on direct appeal
and on post-conviction relief in state court.
does not provide any supporting facts for the grounds.
addition to being in violation of Rule 2, without such
information the Court is unable to conduct its initial review of
the Petition, as required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 1
Petitioner neither prepaid the $5.00 filing fee for a
habeas petition as required by Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), nor did
he submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
did submit a copy of his prisoner account statement, the Court
notes that the account statement is not certified and he did not
submit the required affidavit.
See L. CIV. R. 81.2(b) (“Whenever
a Federal, State, or local prisoner submits a…petition for a
writ of habeas corpus…and seeks in forma pauperis status, the
If Petitioner submits an amended petition, he is reminded that
federal habeas review is concerned with whether there has been a
violation of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[t]he Supreme
Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court
shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”). Claims
based on errors of state law are not cognizable on federal habeas
review, and federal courts cannot re-examine state court
determinations on state law issues. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.
62, 67–8 (1991). Several of the claims contained in the instant
Petition appear to be only errors or state law.
prisoner shall also submit an affidavit setting forth
information which establishes that the prisoner is unable to pay
the fees and costs of the proceedings and shall further 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
prisoner's prison account during the six-month period prior to
the date of the certification.”).
For the reasons stated above, the Court will
administratively terminate this matter.
If Petitioner wishes to
reopen this case, within 30 days, he must submit a complete,
signed habeas petition on the correct form which identifies his
grounds for relief and the supporting facts.
He must also
submit either the $5 filing fee or a complete in forma pauperis
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: May 5, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
The Court notes that if the uncertified account statement is
correct, it appears that Petitioner may not be entitled to in forma
pauperis status in this matter because his account has exceeded
$200 in the past six months.
See L. CIV. R. 81.2(c) (“If the
prison account of any petitioner or movant exceeds $200, the
petitioner or movant shall not be considered eligible to proceed
in forma pauperis.”).
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?