ANDREW v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER administratively terminating action. Petitioner may have this matter reopened if, within thirty days of the date of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, he files his amended petition stating each his claim i ndividually. 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). Within fifteen days from the date of entry of this Order, Respondent shall file a Written statement verifying its representation by counsel designated in this matter as "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" or, in alternative entering appearance of Respondent's substitution counsel; etc. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 9/23/14. (sr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RANDY ANDREW,
Civil Action No. 14-576 1 (WHW)

Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Walls, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court upon the Clerk’s receipt of Petitioner’s

§

2255

motion (“Petition”), see ECF No. 1, which arrived accompanied
by Petitioner’s
application to proceed j

paupc.

ECF No. 1-1.’ The Petition raises three

“umbrella” Grounds. ç ECF No. 1. Each Ground contains multiple, often
obscure,
generic and hard-to-understand “sub-grounds.”

$,

ECF No. 1, at 4 (Petitioner’s

Ground One, which asserts that the prosecutors: (1) “failed [P]etitioner’s
request for
Brady obligations by not disclosing impeachment evidence of
audio visual DVD
recordings”; (2) “withheld Jencks material”; (3) “covered up multiple
failed attempts of
informant and [Pjetitioner”; (4) “withheld information and location of
[Gjovernment
informant”; (5) “withheld information of Mark Mc Cargo’s arrest
after multiple
request{s] concerning [do-conspirator’s involvement with [Pjetitioner”;
(6) “covered up
agents containing [P]etitioner by ways of phone calls from agents[’J
cellular phone[s]”);
see also id. at 7 (Petitioner’s Ground Three, which asserts that his
defense counsel “was
1 Because
a § 2255 motion is merely “a continuation” of the underlying criminal
proceeding, “in which the
filing fees or leave to proceed ii fg pipcj, were not required,”
United
v. Thomas, 713 F.3d
165, 173 (3d Cir. 2013), Petitioner’s in forma
ppcris application was unnecessary. See id. at 173-74.

ineffective during critical pre-trial portion of the case [because:
(I)] he did not
independently investigate the circumstances[; (2) he did not] call availab
le witnesses on
[P]etitioner’s behalf!; (3) he did not] subject the prosecution’s case
to an adversarial
challenge[; (4) hej did not look into any of the [P]etitioner’s claims
[; (5) he] ignored to
prepare a strategic defense[J by not exercising diligence during pre-tria
l portion[j of the
case”). Petitioner’s “umbrella” claims often repeat each other. See
id. at 5 (Petitioner’s
Ground Two, which asserts sub-grounds substantively indistinguishable
from those raised
in his Ground One).
So drafted, Petitioner’s motion fails to comply with the Habeas Rules.
Habeas
Rule 2 does not envision a pleading of “umbrella” claims containing
“sub-grounds” that
are effectively different claims.

28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 Rule 2(c)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. §

2254 Rule 2(d); 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). And
it is Petitioner’s obligation to detail the facts underlying each of
his claims. “Habeas
corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements,” McFar
land 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.
Rule 1(b).

§ 2254 Rule 2(c)(2), applicable to § 2255 through

As example, Petitioner should explain which specific Brady
or Jencks

materials were withheld, what were the “multiple failed attemp
ts of informant and
Petitioner” that the prosecutors “covered” and how these “attem
pts” were relevant to
Petitioner’s conviction, what information about the Govern
ment informant was
“withheld” and how that information and the location of the informant
were relevant to
Petitioner’s conviction, what were the acts of “containing Petitioner
by ways of phone

2

__

calls” and how a “cover up” of that “containing” was relevan
t to Petitioner’s conviction,
which “circumstances” Petitioner’s defense counsel did not
investigate and how those
circumstances were relevant to Petitioner’s conviction,
who were the “available
witnesses” the defense counsel failed to call, what these witnes
ses would have testified to
and how those testimonies would be relevant to Petitioner’s convic
tion, which challenges
the defense counsel failed to raise and how those challen
ges would be relevant to
Petitioner’s conviction, which Petitioner’s claims the defense
counsel did not “look into”
and how those claims would be relevant to Petitioner’s convic
tion, what was the strategic
defense Petitioner’s counsel omitted to prepare, etc.
IT IS, therefore, on this

day of

,

2014,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this
matter by making
a new and separate entry on the docket reading, “CIVIL CASE
TERMiNATED”; and it
is further
ORDERED that administrative termination is not a final dismis
sal on the merits,
see Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265
(3d Cir. 2013); and it is
further
ORDERED that Petitioner may have this matter reopened if,
within thirty days of
the date of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order, he files his amended
petition stating each his claim individually, without repetitions
or resorting to “umbrella”
pleading, and detailing his factual predicate in support of each
claim; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinio
n 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 further

3

ORDERED that the Clerk shall selve this Order Upon Respondent by means of
electronic delivery; and it is finally
ORDERED that, Within fifteen days from the date of entry of this rder,
O
Respondent shall file a Written statement vering its represfatjon by
counsel
desigfl in this matter as
“ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED or, in alternative entering
appearce of Respofldent substitutjo counsel
/

United States Senior

4

‘1

istrict Judge

/