WALLACE v. D'ILIO et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM Opinion and ORDER that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate this matter, without filing Petitioner's submission, etc.; that the Clerk of the Court shall forward Petitioner a blank AO 241(modified): DNJ-Habeas-0 08(Rev. 01-2014) form; if Petitioner wishes to reopen this matter, he shall so notify the Court, in a writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Memorandum and Order, etc. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 5/12/14. (Clerk's Note: blank AO241 mailed to Pltf)(jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOSEPH WALLACE,

:

Civil Action No. 14-0067 (SRC)

Petitioner,

v.
STEPHEN D et al,,
ILIO,
t

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Respondents.

Pro se Petitioner Joseph Wallace (“Petitioner”),
a prisoner confined at New Jersey State
Prison, Trenton, New Jersey, submitted for tiling
an application executed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254. Local Civil Rule 81.2 provides:
Unless prepared by counsel, petitions to this Cou
rt for a writ of habeas
corpus. shall be in writing (legibly handwritten
in ink or typewritten),
signed by the petitioner or movant, on forms supp
lied by the Clerk.
.

.

L. Civ. R. 81.2(a).
Petitioner did not use the habeas form applicabl
e to Section 2254 petitions, i.e., AO 241
(modified): DNJ-Habeas-008(Rev, (>1-2014).
Moreover, his original application is a 106-page
submission. Habeas Rule 2(d), titled “Standard form
,” provides that “[tlhe petition must
substantially ftllow either the form appended
to these rules or a form prescribed by a local
district-court nile” The standard form direct
habeas litigants to state concisely every ground
on
which the litigant’s claims that (s)he is being held
unlawfully and to summarize briefly the facts
supporting each ground. Petitioner’s original
106-page application. as submitted, violates the
requirements of Rule 2(d).

§

___

THEREFORE, it is on this

day of

4>1

,

2013.

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administ
ratively terminate this matter,
without filing Petitioner’s submission, and Petitione
r is informed that administrative termination
is not a “dismissal” for purposes of the statute of limit
ations, and if this matter is reopened in
accordance with the terms of this Memorandum and
Order, his application executed on the
appropriate form would be deemed timely if Petitione
r’s original submission in this matter was
filed timely, see Papotto v, Hartford Life & Ace. Ins.
Co., 731 F3d 265, 275 (2013)
(distinguishing administrative terminations from dism
issals);
Highlands. 705 F3d 80, 84 n.2 (2013) (describing prisoner’s
mailbox rule generally): Dasilva v.
Sheriffs Dep’t., 413 F. App’x 498, 502 (3rd Cir, 2011
) (pc curiam) (“[The) statute of limitations
is met when a petition is submitted to the clerk befo
re the statute runs”); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward
Petitioner a blank AO 24!
(modified): DNJ-Habeas-008(Rev. 01-2014) form; and
it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk’s service of the blank habe
as petition form shall not be
construed as this Court’s finding that the original subm
ission is or is not timely, or that
Petitioner’s claims are or are not duly exhausted; and
it is further
ORDERED that if Petitioner wishes to reopen this matt
er, he shall so notify the Court, in
a writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court, with
in 30 days of the date of entry of this
Memorandum and Order. Petitioner’s writing shall inclu
de a complete, signed habeas petition
on the appropriate form served to him by the Cler
k. Such petition form shall be concise; and it is
further

ORDERED that upon receipt of a writing from Petitioner stating that he wishes to reopen

this matter and a complete, siied, concisely executed appropriate petition form, the Clerk will
be directed to reopen this matter; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum and Order upon Petitioner by
regular US. mail,

ANtEY R. CHESLER,
United States District Judge