CHOWDHURY v. WOOD et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/22/17. (jbk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KIMBA M. WOOD,
EZAZ KABIR CHOWDHURY,
Civ. No. 17-3491 (NLH)
Ezaz Kabir Chowdhury
8780 202nd Street
Hollis, NY 11423
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Ezaz Kabir Chowdhury files this writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that since he was
“kidnapped” on February 10, 2011, he has been “liv[ing] in
involuntary servitude performance and labor under terror and
fear for his own and his Family's life and safety inside private
secret captivity under and with N.Y.'s incarcerated enemy and
(Pet. ¶ 14.)
Venue and Respondent
Petitioner alleges that he is being held at the “Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in Trenton, New Jersey.”
lists his address as 8780 202nd Street in Hollis, New York and
the envelope in which he submitted his Petition is postmarked
from Hollis, New York.
In the Petition, he states that he is
being held with “N.Y.'s incarcerated enemy and criminal Aliens,”
also suggesting that he is not in fact being held at Fort Dix.
Finally, he names “Kimba M. Wood” and the State of New York as
The Honorable Kimba M. Wood, U.S.D.J. is a
district court judge in the Southern District of New York.
As such, the named
respondents again suggest that Petitioner is not being held in
To the extent he is being held in New York, and not New
Jersey, he must file his Petition in the proper district court
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004)
(“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his
present physical custody within the United States, he should
name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the
district of confinement.”)
He must also name the warden of the
facility where he is being held as respondent.
Id.; see also 28
U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be
directed to the person having custody of the person detained.”).
The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is
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 an application for leave to proceed in forma
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will
be ordered to administratively terminate this action without
To the extent Petitioner is being held at Fort Dix,
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
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 and
also submitting an amended petition with the proper respondent.
To the extent Petitioner is being held in New York, he must file
a petition in the proper district court there.
Order will be entered.
Dated: May 22, 2017
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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?