Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/30/2017. (rtm, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ______________________________ : : : Petitioner, : : v. : : WARDEN MARK KIRBY, : : Respondent. : ______________________________: ANTHONY HADAWAY, Civ. No. 17-4713 (NLH) OPINION APPEARANCES: Anthony Hadaway 63691-066 Fairton Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 420 Fairton, NJ 08320 Petitioner Pro se HILLMAN, District Judge Petitioner Anthony Hadaway, a prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Fairton, New Jersey, files this writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he is actually innocent of a sentencing enhancement. 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). 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. 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 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 2 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 30, 2017 At Camden, New Jersey s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. 3

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?