LEATH v. ORTIZ
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/20/2017. (rtm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WARDEN DAVID E. ORTIZ,
Civ. No. 17-3178 (NLH)
Federal Correctional Institution
East: P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Steven Leath, a prisoner confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Fort Dix, New Jersey, files
this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting
placement in a halfway house and home confinement for the last
eighteen months of his sentence under the Second Chance Act.1
The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is
Petitioner is currently scheduled for release from custody on
October 15, 2019.
required to be paid at the time the petition is presented for
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
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 a complete application for leave to proceed in
Specifically, he failed to submit the required
L. CIV. Rule 81.2(b).
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will
be ordered to administratively terminate this action without
Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open
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.
Dated: June 20, 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).
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?