CLAUSO v. JOHN DOES

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION/ORDER that Plaintiffs application, Docket Entry No. 56, is construed as either Plaintiffs habeas petition, executed pursuant to Section 2254, or as a distinct and separate civil complaint; that Plaintiffs application, Docket Entry No. 56, is dismissed as improperly docketed in this matter; that the Clerk shall open a new and separate habeas matter for Plaintiff, designated Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (state) and Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General) ; that, in this new and separate habeas matter, the Clerk shall designate THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO as Petitioner Pro Se 3 and WARDEN OF CLAUSOS PLACE OF CONFINEMENT as Respondent; that the Clerk shall docket Plaintiffs application (docketed in this matter as Docket Entry No. 56) in that new and separate habeas matter opened for Plaintiff; the Clerk shall designate that docket entry as PETITION-IMPROPERLY FILED and as docket entry no. 1; that the Clerk shall docket this Memorandum Opinion and Order in that new and separate habeas matter; the Clerk shall designate that docket entry as ORDER and as docket entry no. 2; etc.. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 6/26/2012. (mn, )

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 250

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,

Civil Action No.

09-5306

(CCC)

Plaintiff,
V.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MR. GLOVER et al.,
Defendants.

IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

On October 19,

2010,

time was proceeding

Plaintiff,
,

a state prisoner who at that

filed a § 1983 civil suit

challenging his conditions of confinement.
No.

1.

Plaintiff’s civil complaint to that effect was filed

along with Plaintiff’s filing fee.

These submissions,
matter,
2011.
2.

therefore,

Docket Entry No.

which was reassigned to the undersigned on June 30,
See Docket Entry No.

44.
Plaintiff

ro se

(“Petition”)

filed an application

for the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus
Entry No.

56.

[5]

--

still proceeding
titled “Petition

2254.”

See Docket

That filing was executed on March 15,

Eleven days later,

on March 25,

2012,

2012.

Plaintiff

retained legal counsel who entered an appearance on the
docket.

2.

gave rise to the instant

While this action was pending,

See id.

See Docket Entry

See Docket Entry No.

54.

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 251

3.

The Petition seemingly challenges either Plaintiff’s
currently served sentence or a sentence Plaintiff expects to
be imposed in another,

still pending,

prosecuted in state court.

,

criminal matter

generally,

Docket Entry No.

56.
4.

To the degree Plaintiff wishes to seek habeas relief, he may
not do so by way of the instant civil proceeding.

Federal

law provides two avenues of relief to prisoners:

a petition

for habeas corpus and a civil rights complaint.
Muhammad v. Close,

540 U.s.

749,

750

(2004)

.

“Challenges

to the validity of any confinement or to particulars
affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus
[while]

requests for relief turning on circumstances of

confinement
Id.

[fall within the realm of]

a § 1983 action.”

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained

the distinction between the availability of civil rights

‘
In a series of cases beginning with Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Supreme Court analyzed the intersection
of civil rights and habeas corpus.
In Preiser, state prisoners
who had been deprived of good-conduct-time credits by the New
York State Department of Correctional Services as a result of
disciplinary proceedings brought a § 1983 action seeking
injunctive relief to compel restoration of the credits, which
would have resulted in their immediate or speedier release.
See
j, at 476.
The prisoners did not seek compensatory damages for
the loss of their credits,
jj, at 494.
Assessing the
prisoners’ challenge, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner must
bring a suit for equitable relief that, effectively, challenges
“the fact or duration of confinement” as a habeas corpus
jj at 500.
petition.
.

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 252

relief and the availability of habeas relief as follows:
“[W]henever the challenge ultimately attacks the
habeas’

-

‘core of

the validity of the continued conviction or the

fact or length of the sentence

-

a challenge, however

denominated and regardless of the relief sought, must be
brought by way of a habeas corpus petition.

Conversely,

when the challenge is to a condition of confinement such
that a finding in plaintiff’s favor would not alter his
sentence or undo his conviction,

an action under § 1983 is

appropriate.”

288 F.3d 532,

2002).

Learner v.

Therefore,

Fauver,

542

(3d Cir.

in the event Plaintiff wishes to

challenge the validity of his confinement

(be it in

connection with the currently served or anticipated criminal
sentence),

he can do so only by filing a proper habeas

petition.

Out of an abundance of caution,

the Court will

direct the Clerk to commence a new and separate habeas
matter for Plaintiff in order to allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to litigate his habeas challenges,
5.

if any.
2

“Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements.” McFarland v.
Habeas Rule 2(c)

Scott,

512 U.S.

849,

856

(1994).

requires a petition to “specify all the

grounds for relief,”

“state the facts supporting each

2

The Court reminds Plaintiff that he would be required to
submit either his filing fee of $5.00 or his in forma auperis
application for the purposes of litigating that new habeas case.
3

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 253

ground,””state the relief requested,”
typewritten,

be printed,

or legibly handwritten, and be signed under

penalty of perjury.

28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 Rule 2(c).

Here,

the

Petition is illegible,

does not clearly state the facts on

which Plaintiff relies,

and is unclear with regard to the

relief requested.

In sum,

the Court cannot determine with a

measurable degree of certainty the facts and nature of
Plaintiff’s habeas challenges.

Therefore,

be dismissed without prejudice,

and Plaintiff will be

the Petition will

allowed an opportunity to submit an amended habeas pleading
that complies with the requirements of Habeas Rule 2 (c).
The Clerk will be directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank
habeas petition form and a blank in forma iauteris
application for incarcerated individuals seeking to initiate
a habeas action.
6.

In addition,

to the degree Plaintiff’s Petition can be

construed as a challenge to certain state proceedings by
means of a civil complaint,

such claims cannot be brought in

the instant action, which has been dedicated,

since 2009,

to

Plaintiff’s challenges to his conditions of confinement.
7.

Rule 20(a) (2)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits

the joinder of defendants and Rule 18(a)
of claims.

See Fed. R. Civ.

20(a) (2) provides:

“Persons

4

P.
.

18(a),
.

.

governs the joinder

20(a)(2).

Rule

may be joined in one

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 254

action as defendants if:
against them jointly,

any right to relief is asserted

(A)

severally, or in the alternative with

respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence,
(B)

or series of transactions or occurrences;

any question of law or fact common to all defendants

will arise in the action.”
(B).

Rule 18

may join,

(a) provides

Fed. R. Civ.
:

p.

20(a) (2) (A)

18(a)

.

as independent or alternative claims,
Fed.

as many
R. Civ.

Wright & Miller’s treatise on federal civil

procedure explains that,
named,

and

“A party asserting a claim

claims as it has against an opposing party.”
p.

and

where multiple defendants are

the analysis under Rule 20 precedes that under Rule

18:
Rule 20 deals solely with joinder of parties and
becomes relevant only when there is more than one
party on one or both sides of the action.
It is not
concerned with joinder of claims, which is governed by
Rule 18.
Therefore, in actions involving multiple
defendants Rule 20 operates independently of Rule 18

Despite the broad language of Rule 18(a), plaintiff
may join multiple defendants in a single action only
if plaintiff asserts at least one claim to relief
against each of them that arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence and presents questions of
law or fact common to all
.

Charles Allen Wright,

.

Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane,

Federal Practice & Procedure

Civil 3d §1655;

United States v. MississipDi,

380 U.S.

128,

see also

143

(1965)

(where county registrars were alleged to be carrying on
5

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 255

activities which were part of a series of transactions or
occurrences,

the validity of which depended upon questions

of law or fact common to all of them,

joinder of registrars

in one suit as defendants was proper under Rule 20(a)); Ross
v, Meagan,

638 F.

2d 646,

650 n.5

(3d Cir.

on other cirounds by, Neitzke v. Williams,
(1989)

1981),
490 U.s.

overruled
319,

328

(joinder of defendants is not permitted by Rule 20

unless both commonality and same transaction requirements
are satisfied>.

Consequently,

a civil plaintiff may not

name more than one defendant in his original or amended
complaint unless one claim against each additional defendant
is transactionally related to the claim against the first
defendant and involves a common question of law or fact.
See Fed. R. Civ.

P.

20(a) (2).

As the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit once explained,
may not join,

in one case,

may have a claim,

a prisoner

all defendants against whom he

unless the prisoner satisfies the dual

requirements of Rule 20(a) (2)
Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine,
but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined
with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.
Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in
different suits, not only to prevent the sort of
morass that [a multi]-claim, [rnulti]-defendant suit
produced but also to ensure that prisoners pay the
required filing fees
for the Prison Litigation
Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits
or appeals that any prisoner may file without
prepayment of the required fees.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
-

6

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 256

A buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed
say, a suit complaining that A
by a free person
defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him,
D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his copyright,
should be rejected if
all in different transactions
filed by a prisoner.
-

*

George v.

Smith,

507 F.

3d 605,

607

Here,

(7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiffs Petition indicates that Plaintiffs challenges
to a particular criminal proceeding are transactionally
unrelated to the condition of confinement challenges
underlying the instant matter and,

in addition,

persons other than Defendants in this action.

involve
In the event

Plaintiff wishes to prosecute a separate Section 1983 civil
challenge related to that criminal proceeding,

Plaintiff

must do so by submitting a new and separate civil complaint
accompanied by his filing fee of $350
forma paueris application).

(or by a duly executed

In order to enable

Plaintiff to pursue this course of action,

the Court will

direct the Clerk to commence a new Section 1983 proceeding
for Plaintiff and to provide him with a blank civil
11
complaint form and a blank j forma ‘oaueris application for
incarcerated individuals seeking to initiate a civil action.
IT IS,

therefore,

on this

‘—>

day of

J

,

2012,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application, Docket Entry No.

56,

is construed as either Plaintiff’s habeas petition, executed
pursuant to Section 2254,

or as a distinct and separate civil

complaint; and it is further
7

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 257

ORDERED that Plaintiffs application,

Docket Entry No.

is dismissed as improperly docketed in this matter,

56,

Such

dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s prosecution of his
habeas or civil challenges raised in Plaintiff’s application,
Docket Entry No.

and it is further

56;

ORDERED that the Clerk shall open a new and separate habeas
matter for Plaintiff,

designated “Cause:

Writ of Habeas Corpus

(state)” and “Nature of Suit:

Corpus

(General)”;

ORDERED that,

28:2254 Petition for
530 Habeas

and it is further
in this new and separate habeas matter,

Clerk shall designate “THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO” as

the

“Petitioner Pro

3
Se” and “WARDEN OF CLAUSO’S PLACE OF CONFINEMENT” as
“Respondent”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket Plaintiff’s application
(docketed in this matter as Docket Entry No.

56)

separate habeas matter opened for Plaintiff;

the Clerk shall

designate that docket entry as
docket entry no.

1;

in that new and

“PETITION-IMPROPERLY FILED” and as

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket this Memorandum Opinion
and Order in that new and separate habeas matter opened for

Because Plaintiff’s counsel in the instant matter did not
make appearance at the time Plaintiff’s application was
submitted, the Court finds it improper to designate Plaintiff’s
instant counsel as his counsel for the purposes of such habeas
proceedings.
However, no statement made in this Memorandum
Opinion and Order shall be construed as preventing Plaintiff’s
counsel from representing him in such habeas action.
8

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 258

Plaintiff;

the Clerk shall designate that docket entry as “ORDER”

and as docket entry no. 2;

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign this new and separate
habeas matter to the undersigned; and it is further
ORDERED that the aforesaid “PETITION-IMPROPERLY FILED” shall
be deemed dismissed, without prejudice,

for Plaintiff’s failure

to comply with the requirements of Habeas Rule 2; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this
new § 2254 matter opened for Plaintiff by making a separate entry
on the docket of that new habeas matter stating “CIVIL CASE
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED”; and it is further
ORDERED that,

in the event Plaintiff wishes to prosecute

that new habeas matter,
in that action
2),

Plaintiff shall file an amended petition

(complying with the requirements of Habeas Rule

along with either a filing fee of $5.00 or with Plaintiff’s

duly executed

forma aueris application.

Plaintiff’s

submissions to that effect shall be executed within thirty days

from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
the event Plaintiff duly makes such submissions,

In

the Court will

direct the Clerk to reopen the new § 2254 matter opened for
4
Plaintiff; and it is further

No statement made in this Memorandum Opinion and Order
shall be construed as expressing this Court’s position as to the
substantive or procedural validity or invalidity of Plaintiff’s

9

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 259

ORDERED that,

in addition to the foregoing,

the Clerk shall

open a new and separate civil matter for Plaintiff,

designated

“Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights” and “Nature of Suit:
Prisoner: CIVIL RIGHTS”;
ORDERED that,

and it is further

in that new and separate civil matter,

Clerk shall designate “THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO” as

the

“Plaintiff Pro

5
Se” and “PARTICIPANTS IN CLAUSO’S STATE PROCEEDING”
“Defendants”;

550

as

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket Plaintiff’s application
(docketed in this matter as Docket Entry No.
separate civil matter opened for Plaintiff;
designate that docket entry as

56>

in that new and

the Clerk shall

“COMPLAINT-CHALLENGES TO

CONVICTION” and as docket entry no.

1;

and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket this Memorandum Opinion
and Order in that new and separate civil matter opened for
Plaintiff;

the Clerk shall designate that docket entry as

and as docket entry no.

amended habeas petition,

2;

“ORDER”

and it is further

if filed.

Again, because Plaintiff’s counsel in the instant matter
did not make an appearance at the time Plaintiff’s application
was submitted, the Court finds it improper to designate
Plaintiff’s instant counsel as his counsel for the purposes of
the new civil proceeding.
However, no statement made in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be construed as preventing
Plaintiff’s counsel from representing him in the new civil
action,

10

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 260

ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign this new and separate
civil matter to the undersigned; and it is further
ORDERED that the aforesaid “COMPLAINT-CHALLENGES TO
CONVICTION” shall be deemed dismissed,

without prejudice;

and it

is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this
new § 1983 matter opened for Plaintiff by making a separate entry
on the docket of the new civil matter stating “CIVIL CASE
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED”;
ORDERED that,

in the event Plaintiff wishes to prosecute

that new civil matter,
in that action
concisely),

and it is further

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

(stating Plaintiff’s claims clearly and

along with either a filing fee of $350.00 or

Plaintiffs duly executed in forma iauoeris application.
Plaintiff’s submissions to that effect shall be executed within
thirty days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order.

In the event Petitioner duly makes such submissions,

the

Court will direct the Clerk to reopen the new § 1983 matter
opened for Plaintiff; and it is further
6
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Plaintiff’s counsel

6

(who has entered an appearance

No statement made in this Memorandum Opinion and Order
shall be construed as expressing this Court’s position as to the
substantive or procedural validity or invalidity of Plaintiff’s
amended civil complaint, if filed in the new civil matter.

11

Case 2:09-cv-05306-CCC-JAD Document 59 Filed 06/26/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 261

in this matter) by means of electronic delivery and,
upon Plaintiff himself

in addition,

(such service shall be executed by regular

U.S. mail and directed to the address utilized by Plaintiff
during the period when Plaintiff was proceeding ro
Docket Entry No.

56,

,

at 5, providing such address).

shall include in such hard-copy mailing:

(a)

see

The Clerk

a copy of the docket

sheet created in the new and separate § 2254 matter opened for
Plaintiff,

(b)

a copy of the docket sheet created in the new and

separate § 1983 matter opened for Plaintiff,
2254 habeas petition;

(d)

incarcerated individuals;

(c)

a blank Section

a blank civil complaint for
(e)

an j forma pauleris application

form for incarcerated individuals seeking habeas relief,

and (f)

an in forma pauperis application form for incarcerated
individuals seeking to commence a civil action; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Defendants in this matter by means of electronic
delivery.

No action by Defendants is required at this juncture

with regard to the new and separate § 2254 matter opened for
Plaintiff or the new and separate § 1983 matter opened for
Plaintiff.

Claire C, Cecchi
United States District Judge

12