BASKERVILLE v. STAPLETON et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the Clerk shall OPEN a new case with the caption reflecting that the petitioner is Martin Luther Baskerville and the respondents are the warden of the Northern State Prison and the Attorney General of the State of N ew Jersey and the Clerk shall file the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22 in Case No. 13-1750) in the new case as a federal habeas petition; The Clerk shall forward Plaintiff a blank form for a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of H abeas Corpus A0241 (modified): DNJ-Habeas-008 (Rev. 01-2014); Within 45 days from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an amended petition in the new case, using the form provided by the Clerk, etc.; The Clerk shall notify Plaintiff of the opportunity to apply in writing to the assigned judge for the appointment of pro bono counsel, etc. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 05/25/2018. (ek)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARTIN LUTHER BASKERVILLE JR.,

Civil Action No. 13-1750 (CCC)

Plaintiff,
v.

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LT. JAMES STAPLETON, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding, in forma pauperis (“IFP”), with a civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
28 U.S.C.

§

§

1983. At this time, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to

19l5A to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from suit. It appearing that:
1. The following relevant background of Plaintiffs criminal history is alleged in his Second
Amended Complaint:
a. In 1988, a Bergen County grand jury returned an indictment in New Jersey (the “NJ
Indictment”) against Plaintiff, charging him with armed robbery, aggravated
assault, and resisting arrest. (ECF No. 22 (“SAC”) 12).
¶
b. On June 28, 1989, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with being a fugitive ofjustice
in connection with a robbery/murder in New York. (Id.

¶ 15).

On August 15, 1989,

Plaintiff was formally charged and arraigned for second degree murder, first degree
robbery, and second degree robbery (the “NY Indictment”). (Id.

1

¶ 16).

c. The NY Indictment indicated that the crime had been committed on April 4, 1989.
(Id.

¶ 20).

Plaintiffhas continuously maintained that he was incarcerated at the

Bergen County Jail on that date; ntore spectficatly,from February 28, 1989 until
August 15, 1989. (Id.

¶ 60).

d. Prior to his criminal trial in New York, Plaintiff attempted to obtain records from
the Bergen County Jail, which he contends would have provided him with an alibi
defense in his New York criminal proceedings by demonstrating that he was
incarcerated from february 1989 through August 1989 (including April 4, 1989,
the date on which the New York crime allegedly occurred).

(Id.

¶f 2 1-22).

However, Plaintiff was told by the records department that records of his
incarceration pertaining to that time period could not be located. (Id.

¶ 23).

Plaintiff was told that the only records that could be located indicated that he was
incarcerated from December 25, 1987 through April 11, 1988. (Id.). On this basis,
Plaintiffs trial counsel in New York refused to assert an alibi defense because there
was no evidence to support it. (Id.

¶ 24).

e. Plaintiff was subsequently convicted by a New York County jury on
November 21, 1990 of second degree murder, first degree robbery, and second
degree robbery. (Id.
f.

¶ 25).

On July 1, 1993, Plaintiff was convicted by a New Jersey jury of armed robbery,
aggravated assault, and resisting arrest. (Id.

¶J 12,

29). Plaintiff was sentenced

to 20 years for the armed robbery conviction and 18 months for the aggravated
assault and resisting arrest convictions, with the sentences to run concurrently. (Id.

¶ 31).

2

g. Plaintiffs New Jersey sentence was made to run consecutively with his New York
sentence. (Id.).
h. In the years since his convictions, Plaintiff has continued to pursue various forms
of relief. Among other things, Plaintiff has sought additional jail credits for time
served in connection with his New Jersey sentence. (See, e.g., ECF No. 1-1 at 45).
i.

In connection with those attempts, Plaintiff contacted Lieutenant James Stapleton
(a defendant in this case), who was employed by the Bergen County Sherriffs
Department and worked at the Bergen County Jail during the relevant times. (See
SAC

¶ 28,

45, 93, 104-05). On August 15, 2006, Lieutenant Stapleton wrote to

Plaintiffs attorney as follows:
As per your request I am providing you with the
following information for Mr. Martin Baskervitte ‘s
incarceration at the Bergen County Jail according
to our records.
S-1350-87
S-524-88

—

—

09/06/87
12/25/87
02/28/89
02/18/93

—

—

—

09/19/87
04/07/88
08/15/89
09/01/93

(See ECF No. 1-1 at 48 (emphasis added)).

j.

On July 19, 2011 Plaintiff submitted a letter brief to the Honorable Liliana DeAvila
$ilebi in New Jersey state court requesting jail credits for the following three
periods of time:
December 25, 1987 through April 7, 1988;
february 29, 1989 through August 15, 1989;
february 18, 1993 through September 1, 1993.
(See Id. at 45-47).

3

k. On November 28, 2011, Mr. Baskerville’s motion for additional jail credit was
granted by the New Jersey state court and Mr. Baskerville was awarded 500 days
ofjail credit. (See id. at 49-51). Importantly, Mr. Baskervilte was awarded credit
for having been incarcerated at the Bergen County Jailfront february 28, 1989
through August 15, 1989. (See Id. at 51).
2. The crux of Plaintiffs claims in this action is that Defendants knowingly and purposely
withheld record of his incarceration at the Bergen County Jail on a New Jersey indictment during
the period between February 1989 and August 1989. (See generally SAC
¶J 135-73).
3. Although the Second Amended Complaint is styled as a
raised claims that challenge his current incarceration.

§ 1983 action, Plaintiff has also

For example, in Plaintiffs original

complaint, Plaintiff requested injunctive relief, asking this Court to issue an order prohibiting the
New Jersey Parole Board from using the New York conviction as a reason for a denial of parole
or other unfavorable classifications.’ (See ECF No. 1 at 31). Such challenges, normally, can only
be brought in a habeas petition. Se Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen a
state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief
he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”); McAleese v. Brennan, 483
F.3d 206, 212 (3d Cir. 2007) (considering challenges to parole decision brought as habeas claims);
Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s holding that
challenges to parole decisions are not coguizable under

§ 1983).

‘Although Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, it
is clear to the Court that Plaintiff is still seeking to invalidate his New York conviction.
4

4. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in New Jersey but the invalidation of his New York
conviction could have significant consequences for his New Jersey incarceration.2 Therefore, this
Court appears to have jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging the New York conviction.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (“District courts are limited to granting habeas
relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’ [The Supreme Court has] interpreted this language to
require ‘nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian.”
(citing 2$ U.S.C.

§ 2241(a) and Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. ofKy., 410 U.S. 484,495 (1973))).

Furthermore, it appears that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs custodian, the warden of
the Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey.
5. In light of the above recitation of facts and law in connection with this case, the Court will
hereby sever Plaintiffs habeas claims into a separate action. By severing this action, the Court
makes no finding as to whether Plaintiffs habeas challenge would or would not be barred by any
procedural problems. Indeed, as the Second Amended Complaint is styled as a

§ 1983 action, the

Court lacks the necessary information at this time to make such determinations. Nonetheless,
severing this case will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended habeas petition in the
new action, thus enabling this Court to determine whether such petition can be properly
considered.3

2

For example, Plaintiffs New Jersey sentence was 20 years. It is apparent from the face of the
Second Amended Complaint that he has been incarcerated for longer than 20 years. Thus, if
Plaintiffs New York conviction were to be invalidated, he could argue that he should receive jail
time credit toward his New Jersey sentence for the time he was wrongfully incarcerated for his
New York conviction.
The Court notes that, even though the New York case is now more than two decades old, Plaintiff
may be able to overcome any timeliness or procedural problems if he shows that he has a viable
actual-innocence claim. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013) (“[A]ctual
innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the
impediment is a procedural bar.. or. expiration of the statute of limitations.”).
.

.

.

5

IT IS therefore onthis

2_5

dayof

t4CA.4.4

,201$,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall OPEN a new case with the caption reflecting that the
petitioner is Martin Luther Baskerville and the respondents are the warden of the Northern State
Prison and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the Clerk shall file the Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22 in Case No. 13-1750) in the new case as a federal habeas
petition under 2$ U.S.C.

§ 2254; it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward Plaintiff a blank form for a Petition under
2$ U.S.C.

§ 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus A0241 (modified): DNJ-Habeas-008 (Rev. 01—

2014); it is further
ORDERED that, within 45 days from the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an
amended petition in the new case, using the form provided by the Clerk, that asserts his actual
innocence challenge to the New York conviction; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs entire Second Amended Complaint, with the exception of his
habeas claims, which will be addressed in a separate action, is permitted to proceed past 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 screening in this matter; it is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.

§ 19 15(d), the Clerk shall issue summons and the

United States Marshal shall serve summons, the Second Amended Complaint and this Order upon
Defendants, with all costs of service advanced by the United States;4 it is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1 997e(g)(2), Defendants shall file and serve an

answer, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A); it is further

Alternatively, the U.S. Marshal may notify Defendants that an action has been commenced and
request that the Defendants waive personal service of a summons in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(d).
6

ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1) and § 4(a) of Appendix H of the Local

Civil Rules, the Clerk shall notify Plaintiff of the opportunity to apply in writing to the assigned
judge for the appointment ofpro bono counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that, if at any time prior to the filing of a notice of appearance by Defendants,
Plaintiff seeks the appointment ofpro bono counsel or other relief, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)
and (d), Plaintiff shall (1) serve a copy of the application by regular mail upon each party at his
last known address and (2) file a Certificate of Service.5

Claire C. Cecchi, U.$.D.J.

Afier an attorney files a notice of appearance on behalf of a Defendant, the attorney will
automatically be electronically served all documents that are filed in the case.
7