HILL v. LANIGAN et al

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER; ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate this matter for lack of § 2241 jurisdiction by making a new and separate entry on the docket of this matter reading CIVIL CASE ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED; ORDERED that the Clerk shall co mmence a new and separate matter for Petitioner, designating SPILLERMAN HILL as Petitioner and COMMISSIONER GARY M. LANIGAN, KAREN HUGHES, MR. JAMES PLOUSIS, AND NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, as Respondents, Cause as 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Hab eas Corpus (State,) and Nature of Suit as 530 Habeas Corpus (General), and shall assign that new matter to the undersigned; ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket this Memorandum Opinion and Order in that new matter and Petitioners application (docketed in the latter with the docket text reading PETITIONERS ORIGINAL SUBMISSION ASSERTING AN INCORRECT JURISDICTIONAL BASIS); ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate that new matter by making a new and separate entry on the docket of that matter reading C IVIL CASE ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED;, etc.; ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail, together with a blank form to be used in the filing of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and enclose in the mailing a copy of the docket sheet generated in the new matter which was opened for Petitioner. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 3/18/2014. (ld, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
COMMISSIONER GARY M. LANIGAN, :
et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
:
SPILLERMAN HILL,

Civil Action No. 14-353 (FSH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s submission of a habeas petition
styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application and application for in forma pauperis status; and
It appearing that Petitioner is a state prisoner confined at Northern State Prison in
Newark, New Jersey; and
To the extent that Petitioner intends to challenge his confinement under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, the Court is without § 2241 jurisdiction to entertain such challenges, regardless of their
procedural/substantive merits or deficiencies. Section 2241 “confers habeas jurisdiction to hear
the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his
sentence.” Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Coady v.
Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). It is 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that confers jurisdiction on a
federal court to entertain writs of habeas corpus filed by a petitioner who in custody pursuant to a
state court judgment. Applications under § 2254 are subject to the standards prescribed by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Such standards include

1

issues of timeliness of the application, custody of the litigant under the order that he is
challenging, and exhaustion requirements. A state prisoner’s challenge to denial of parole are, as
are challenges to the imposed sentence, § 2254 claims that must be filed in accordance with
AEDPA; and
It appears that here the sole challenge Petitioner might raise is a timely, duly exhausted §
2254 petition; and
The Court having no information as to whether Petitioner raised that challenge in a timely
manner under AEDPA and the Court having no certainty that Petitioner duly exhausted his
challenges in state court, this Court finds it unwarranted to sua sponte deem that the instant
Petition is a § 2254 application. However, out of caution, the Court will direct the Clerk to
commence a new and separate § 2254 matter for Petitioner, in which Petitioner would be allowed
an opportunity to detail the timeliness, exhaustion and substance of his challenge in the event he
so desires; therefore
IT IS on this 18th day of March, 2014;
ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate this matter for lack of § 2241 jurisdiction by
making a new and separate entry on the docket of this matter reading “CIVIL CASE
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED”; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall commence a new and separate matter for Petitioner,
designating “SPILLERMAN HILL” as “Petitioner” and “COMMISSIONER GARY M.
LANIGAN,” KAREN HUGHES,” “MR. JAMES PLOUSIS,” AND NEW JERSEY STATE
PAROLE BOARD,” as “Respondents,” “Cause” as “28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(State,)” and “Nature of Suit” as “530 Habeas Corpus (General),” and shall assign that new
matter to the undersigned; and it is further

2

ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket this Memorandum Opinion and Order in that new
matter and Petitioner’s application (docketed in the latter with the docket text reading
“PETITIONER’S

ORIGINAL

SUBMISSION

ASSERTING

AN

INCORRECT

JURISDICTIONAL BASIS”); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall terminate that new matter by making a new and separate
entry on the docket of that matter reading “CIVIL CASE ADMINISTRATIVELY
TERMINATED”; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner may reopen that new matter by submitting, within thirty days
from the date of entry of this Order, an amended pleading which details his claims under § 2254
and shows cause as to why the challenges should not be dismissed with prejudice as untimely
and/or dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted in state court; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon
Petitioner by regular U.S. mail, together with a blank form to be used in the filing of a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition, and enclose in the mailing a copy of the docket sheet generated in the new
matter which was opened for Petitioner.

s/ Faith S. Hochberg______
FAITH S. HOCHBERG
United States District Judge

3