GUITEREZ v. HUGHES et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/6/18. (jbk, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
C. RAY HUGHES, et al.,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________:
LAZARO R. GUITEREZ,

Civ. No. 18-2521 (NLH)
OPINION

APPEARANCE:
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.

Filing Fee
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 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
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 the required account certification from as
part of his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Conclusion
For the reason set forth above, the Clerk of 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
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).
2

within thirty (30) 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: March 6, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

3