JONES v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER that Petitioner's time to submit his all-inclusive Section 2255 motion is extended for fifteen days from the date of entry of this Order, etc.; that no pages or facts omitted from Petitioners all-inclusive Secti on 2255 motion will be considered, and no litigation trickery will be tolerated; the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail and enclose in said mailing a blank Section 2255 form titled, A0243 (modified): DNJ-Habeas-004 (Rev. 01-2014), etc. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 7/24/14. (jd, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KELVIN JONES,
Civil Action No. 14-1557 (WHW)
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner’s submission of his amended
Section 2255 motion. See ECF No. 7.
On March 10, 2014, about thirty days prior to expiration of his one-year
limitations period, Petitioner submitted his initial Section 2255 motion. See ECF No. 1.
In light of this District’s adoption of a new Section 2255 form containing a notice
advising litigants if their rights under United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir.
1999), this Court directed the Clerk to serve Petitioner with such new form so Petitioner
would be able to file an amended Section 2255 motion on the correct form and verify that
he was duly advised of his Miller rights. See ECF No. 2. Petitioner, ignoring the form
served upon him, failed to file an amended Section 2255 motion; rather, he filed the
documents titled “Notice of Filing of Additional Supplemental Pages
•

.

.

.

.“

and “Affidavit

in Support,” see ECF Nos. 3 and 4, and an application promising to file more

“supplemental pages” in sixty days. See ECF No. 5, Presuming that Petitioner, a p se
litigant, might have misunderstood this Court’s directive, the Court ordered the Clerk to

re-serve Petitioner with the new form and generously extended Petitioner’s time to file
his amended Section 2255 motion by sixty days. $çç ECF No. 6.
In response, Petitioner filed the amended Section 2255 motion at bar containing
fifteen claims disguised as ten: because Petitioner’s “ground one” contained six different
“sub-grounds.” See ECF No. 7, at 5. Also, this “ground one” was unsupported by a
factual predicate elaborating on these “sub-grounds”; rather, it contained a mere promise
that “[t]he supportive facts will be detailed and argued in [Petitioner’s] Memorandum
Brief, yet to be filed Eon an unspecified date that Petitioner will select].”

So executed, Petitioner’s amended Section 2255 motion violates the Habeas
Rules. It is Petitioner’s obligation to detail the factual predicate underlying each of his
claims.

“Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements,”

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994), and Habeas Rule 2(c) requires a petitioner
to “state the facts supporting each ground.” 28 U.S.C.

§

2254 Rule 2(c)(2), applicable to

§ 2255 through Rule 1(b). Also, Habeas Rule 2 does not envision a pleading of
“umbrella” claims containing “sub-grounds” that are different claims.
2254 Rule 2(c)(1); see also 28 U.S.C.

follow.

.

.

the form.

.

.

§

28 U.S.C.

§

2254 Rule 2(d) (“The petition must substantially

prescribed by a local district-court rule”); Cox v. Warren, No. 11-

7132, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161588, at *4 and n.2 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2013) (pointing out
that “umbrella” grounds are unacceptable).
To add, Petitioner’s mode of litigation, as evidenced by his latest filing, causes

this Court grave concern because Petitioner’s refusal to comply with this Court’s
directives, coupled with his repeated promises to submit “supplemental pages” or
“supportive facts” in the future, operate as ç facto self-grants of extension of time that

____

make a mockery of the limitations period, usurp this Court’s powers and obstruct
adjudication of Petitioner’s claims.

Indeed, Petitioner’s litigation tactics prevent this

Court from directing Respondent’s answer and render Respondent’s timely answer
impossible because Petitioner’s promises to file more “pages” and to assert more “facts”
in the future invite Respondent to shoot at a moving target. For this reason, Petitioner
will be allowed one final opportunity to submit his all-inclusive Section 2255 motion, and
he is strongly encouraged to do it in good faith. In re Telfair, 745 F. Supp. 2d 536, 580
(D.N.J. 2010) (“The courts in this nation stand ready to address challenges brought by
litigants in good faith. Which, in turn, means that the judiciary
this District

—

—

including the Judges in

expect litigants to treat their litigation with utmost seriousness, without

abusing legal process and without unduly testing of the resolve or common sense of the
judiciary”).
IT IS on this

day of

,

2014,

ORDERED that Petitioner’s time to 7 all-inclusive Section 2255 motion
bmiyhis
is extended for fifteen days from the date of erutii of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s all-inclusive Section 2255 motion shall be executed
on the new form and shall state all Petitioner’s claims, asserting each claim individually,
detailing the legal challenge and supporting factual predicate of each claim separately,
without making any references or incorporations-by-reference to Petitioner’s prior
submissions and without unduly grouping different claims into an “umbrella” claim; and
it is further

ORDERED that no “pages” or “facts” omitted from Petitioner’s all-inclusive
Section 2255 motion will be considered, and no litigation trickery will be tolerated; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon
Petitioner by regular U.S. mail and enclose in said mailing a blank Section 2255 form
titled, “A0243 (modified): DNJ-Habeas-004 (Rev. 01-2014)”; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon
Respondent by means of electronic delivery.

Senior District Judge