BARNES v. GLOVER

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction, and that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum Order upon Petitioner, by regular U.S. mail, and shall close the file on this matter. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 4/14/10. (dc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TYRONE BARNES, Petitioner, v. LARRY CLOVER, Respondent. Civil Action No. 10-1176 (SRC)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

This submission

matter of

comes

before

the

Court

upon

Petitioner's relief

application

seeking

habeas

corpus

("Petition"), 1.

pursuant to § 2254,

and it appearing that:

On June 20,

2003, petitioner named "Tyrone D. Barnes," having nunber "124839--864337B," sentence Law rendered filed by a § 2254

identification petition Court of

challenging New

his

the

Superior (and

Jersey,

Division,

Essex

County

clarifying that his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Appellate Division on April 20, which the Supreme
.

1998,

and with regard to denied 03-2 973 him (JLL)

Court Barnes

of V.

New

Jersey

certification) (D.N.J.),

See

Macfarland,

Docket Entries No.

1 and 16, at 5-6

(5 2254 petition

and Judge Linares 2.

decision detailing its content) Judge

During the aforesaid proceedings before Judge Linares, Linares duly advised the petitioner of his Mason

rights,

clarifying to him that a § 2254 habeas litigant was obligated Page -1--

to

marshal

all

his

habeas

challenges

to

any See

particular Docket the

determination in one, all inclusive petition. Entry No. 6.

In response to Judge Linares' Mason notice,

petitioner informed Judge Linares that he wished to proceed with his challenges as they were stated 7. in the original 9, 2004,

petition. Consequently,

Docket

Entry No.

On August

Judge Linares issued an orcer and accompanying Docket Entries Nos.

opinion denying that § 2254 petition. 16 and 17. 3. More than half-a-decade passed by and,

on March 5,

2010,

the

Clerk received the instant § 2254 application from Petitioner. Petitioner clarified that his name was that his identification clarified that number his was "Tyrone Barnes," and Petitioner were See

"124839." and

further

conviction

sentence 20, 1998.

affirmed by the Appellate Instant Matter,

Division on April 1, at 2.

Docket Entry No.

After stating so,

Petitioner proceeded with his challenges to his conviction. See at 4. It appears that this challenges have not been See id. at 3-6. (Tyrone Barnes, case ID#

exhausted in the state courts. 4. This Court gathers 124839) Barnes, appears Linares' that

Petitioner here

and the petitioner in Judge Linares'
ID# l24339--864337B)

(Tyrone D. it

is the same person. and same the

Moreover, in

that case

Petitioner challenges

here the

petitioner

Judge the

determination,

i.e.,

Page -2-

conviction and sentence with regard to which appeal was denied by the Appellate Division on April 20, the application at hand appears 1998. Consequently, to the

second/successive

petition entertained by Judge Linares in Barnes V. Macfarland, 03-2973 5. (JLL)

As Judge Linares already explained to Petitioner in his Mason notice, a habeas to litigant all seeking his a writ in under an § 2254 is

obligated

marshal

claims

all-inclusive

application. to entertain unless the

This Court, Petitioner's United States

therefore,

is without jurisdiction 2254 for petition Third

second/successive § Court of Appeals

the

Circuit grants Petitioner leave to file such second/successive § 2254 petition. 6. In a typical scenario, instant Petition as an this Court would construe Petitioner's application to the Court of Appeals

seeking leave to file a second/successful § 2254 petition, and would direct the Clerk, instant Petition to the accordingly, Court stated of in to forward Petitioner's However, since

Appeals. the

Petitioner's

challenges

instant

application

appear unexhausted, the Court finds such forwarding not in the interests of justice, since all Petitioner's § 2254 claims

might anyway be subject to dismissal for failure to meet the exhaustion requirement even in the event the Court of Appeal g ran t s Petitioner leave to file his instant Petition.

Page -3-

Therefore, the Court will dismiss the application at hand for lack of jurisdiction without directing the Clerk to forward However, the

the instant application to the Court of Appeals. Court stresses that: a. the Court's decision not to forward

the instant

application to the Court of Appeals in no ways pre vents Petitioner from seeking leave from the Court of Appe al on Petitioner's own; but b. this Court's notification of Petitioner of his r ight to seek such leave from the Court of Appeals statement made in this Memorandum Order construed as expressing the Court's
--

or any other shall not be as to

---

opinion

procedural or substantive validity or invalidity of the application at hand.
IT IS on this

4
/

day of

,

2010, filed

ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas CorpLs,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. lack of jurisdiction;

§ 2254,

Docket Entry No.

1,

is DISMISSED for

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum Order upon Petitioner, file on this matter. by regular U.S. mail, and shall close the

STANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge

Page -4-