DERAS LOPEZ 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

HIGINIO DERAS LOPEZ,

Case No. 24–cv–05860–ESK

Petitioner,
v.

OPINION

WARDEN THOMPSON,
Respondent.
KIEL, U.S.D.J.
Petitioner Higinio Deras Lopez filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Petition) (ECF No. 1.)
writ of habeas corpus is $ 5.00.

The filing fee for a petition for

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. The Court will direct the Clerk to send petitioner a new 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