GUITEREZ v. HUGHES et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/6/18. (jbk, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
C. RAY HUGHES, et al.,
LAZARO R. GUITEREZ,
Civ. No. 18-2521 (NLH)
Lazaro R. Guiterez, No. No. 249117G
Southern State Correctional Facility
4295 Route 47
Delmont, NJ 08314
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Lazaro R. Guiterez seeks to bring a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without
prepayment of fees or security or a complete application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
ECF No. 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
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 corpus 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 prisoner’s 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 the required account certification from as
part of his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the reason set forth above, the Clerk of Court will be
ordered to administratively terminate this action without
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).
within thirty (30) days, by either prepaying the filing fee or
submitting a complete application for leave to proceed in forma
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Dated: March 6, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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?