SARRO v. WARDEN THOMPSON
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Edward S. Kiel on 5/7/2024. (dmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRIAN SARRO,
Case No. 24–cv–05577–ESK
Petitioner,
v.
OPINION
WARDEN THOMPSON,
Respondent.
KIEL, U.S.D.J.
Petitioner Brian Sarro filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Petition) (ECF No. 1.)
habeas corpus is $ 5.00.
The filing fee for a petition for writ of
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.
If a prisoner
does not pay the filing fee and instead 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.
L.Civ.R. 81.2(b).
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).
Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis
application.
He included a letter indicating that he requested the Bureau of
Prisons to deduct the filing fee from his account (ECF No. 1–1), but the fee has
not been received by the Clerk’s Office.
The Court will direct the Clerk to send
petitioner an in forma pauperis application to complete and return.
The Clerk
of Court will be ordered to administratively terminate the Petition without
prejudice.1
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
/s/ Edward S. Kiel
EDWARD S. KIEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 7, 2024
Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes of the
statute of limitations, and if the case is re-opened 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
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?