BRAXTON v. ORTIZ et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 8/21/17. (jbk, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN DAVID E. ORTIZ,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
SAVINO BRAXTON,

Civ. No. 17-6260 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Savino Braxton
27314-037
Fort Dix
Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
East: P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Savino Braxton, 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 a reduction in sentence or release from prison based
on inadequate medical care.

(ECF No. 1.)

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 a complete application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

Specifically, he failed to submit the required

account certification.

L. CIV. Rule 81.2(b).
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

1

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
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: August 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).
3