LOCKETT v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM/ORDER REOPENING CASE; that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) as amended by Petitioners request to reopen (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; that Petitioner is granted leave to amend his petition to provide sufficient factual bases to support his claims within thirty (30) days; that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail and shall CLOSE the file. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 5/26/15. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MOSES B. LOCKETT,
Civil Action No. 15-1196 (JLL)

Petitioner,
v.

:

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Respondents.
The Court having reviewed Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§ 2254 (ECF No. 1) and the additional factual information Petitioner provided in his request

to reopen his case (ECF No. 5), and it appearing that:
1. This Court ordered that the petition be administratively terminated
for failure to pay
the filing fee or file an application to proceed informa pauperis on March
4, 2015. (ECF No. 2).
2. Petitioner paid the filing fee on March 25, 2015 (See ECF Docke
t Sheet).
3. On April 20, 2015, this Court screened Petitioner’s original 2254
petition and
dismissed it without prejudice for failure to meet the pleading standards
set out in Rule 2 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (ECF No. 4).
4. On May 19, 2015, Petitioner filed an affidavit setting out additio
nal facts which he
asserts, taken together with the information in his original petition (ECF
No. 1), would meet the
requirements of Rule 2. (ECF No. 5).
5, This Court is required to preliminarily review this amended
petitio& under Rule 4 of
This Court construes ECF No. 5 as an amended petition in so much
as the facts contained in
1

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and determine whether it “plainl
y appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Under this Rule,
this Court is “authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appear
s legally insufficient
on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
6. Pursuant to Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a petitio
n must
“specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner[,] state the
facts supporting each
ground[.j

.

.

.

[and] be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten.” Petitions which provid
e no

more than “vague and conclusory grounds for habeas relief are subject to
summary dismissal”
under the rule. Anderson v. Pennsylvania Attorney General, 82 F. App’x
745, 749 (3d Cir. 2003);
see also United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000); United States
v. Dawson, 857

F.2d 923, 928 (3d Cir. 1988).
7.

In the original petition, Petitioner provided only the following statem
ent as to the

grounds on which it is brought: “Ineffective assistance of counsel: Trial
counsel’s failure to
challenge the grand jury indictment, the Miranda hearing, prosecutorial
misconduct, [State v.
Clawans, 38 N.J. 162 (1962),] charge, the aggravating and mitigating factors
, and the imposition
of consecutive sentences.” (ECF No. 1 at 6).
8. In his amendment, Petitioner provides scant further facts. Petitio
ner suggests that
counsel was ineffective for failing to call David Bowman and Warren
Lewis “to prove [his]
character” in so much as they might explain why someone named “Lavon
.

.

.

was angry.” (ECF

No. 5 at 1). Plaintiff provides no further information as to what these
two alleged witnesses would
have stated had they testified, nor provides any details as to how
that testimony would have
the request to re-open are meant to supplement those previously provid
ed in the petition.
2

affected his trial.
9. Plaintiff then reiterates, without explanation, that counsel was
ineffective for failing to
provide expert testimony, investigate more fully the physical eviden
ce, or conduct a thorough
investigation into one of the state’s witnesses, Anderson Reid. (ECF
No. 5 at 1-2). Petitioner
then sums up his claims as follows: “[tr]ial counsel failed to consult
with petitioner to review the
evidence and prepare potential defenses for trial. Given the severit
y of the nature of the crime,[
]
2
counsel’s job is to put on the best defense for their client even when
there is no defense. By
counsel not doing a due diligence job at preparing for the case and
allowing the best outcome for
his client the court should allow a new trial and an evidentiary hearing
.” (ECF No. 5 at 2).
6.

Petitioner has again failed to provide anything more than vague
and conclusory

statements which purport to suggest that his trial counsel was ineffec
tive. Petitioner has failed to
provide sufficient facts to support these assertions, nor has he provid
ed any context which would
allow Respondents to effectively respond to his Petition. As
such, the petition must again be
summarily dismissed without prejudice. See Anderson, 82 F. App’x
at 749; Thomas, 221 F.3d at
437; Dawson, 857 F.2d at 928.
IT IS THEREFORE on this

)4.

day of May, 2015,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall reopen this case;
and it is further
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (ECF

No. 1) as amended by Petitioner’s request to reopen (ECF
No. 5) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and it is further

2

The top count of which Petitioner was convicted was passion
provocation manslaughter.
(ECF No. I at 1).
3

ORDERED that Petitioner is granted leave to amend his petition to provide suffici
ent
factual bases to support his claims within thirty (30) days; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on Plainti
ff by
regular U.S. mail and shall CLOSE the file.

-Ez
L. Linares, U.S.D.J.

4

W—