ORTIZ v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 8/10/16. (dc, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MOSES C. ORTIZ,
Civil Action No. 16-2071 (JLL)
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et aL,
Respondents.
IT APPEARING THAT:
1. On April 14, 2016, Petitioner, Moses C. Ortiz, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in which he seeks to challenge his continued involuntary commitment
as a sexually violent predator. (ECF No. 1).
2. Following the denial of Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma patiperis with
prejudice (ECF No. 4), Petitioner paid the appropriate filing fee on May 18, 2016. (ECF Docket
Sheet).
3. On May 26, 2016, Petitioner also filed a letter requesting that his habeas petition be
reopened in accordance with this Court’s May 5 Order. (ECF No. 5).
4. On June 2, 2016, this Court entered an Order reopening Petitioner’s habeas matter.
(ECF No. 5). In that order, however, this Court also observed that it appeared from the face of
Petitioner’s habeas petition that Petitioner had failed to exhaust his claims in the state courts. (Id.
at 2-3). This Court therefore ordered Petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be
dismissed for lack of exhaustion within thirty days. (Id.).
1
5. Although more than sixty days have passed since the entrance of that Order, Petitioner
has failed to respond to the Order and has thus failed to show cause why his petition should not be
dismissed.
6. As this Court previously explained Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
requires the Court to screen Petitioner’s habeas petition and determine whether it “plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Pursuant to
this rule, a district court is “authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face.” Mcfarlandv. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
7. Pursuant to 2$ U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(l), habeas relief may not be granted to an individual
confined pursuant to an order of the state courts unless the petitioner has “exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State,” there is an absence of process in the state courts, or there are
circumstances which render the state process ineffective. A petitioner generally satisfies this
exhaustion requirement when he has presented his claims to the highest level of the state courts.
See Ficard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Tinsley v. Johnson, No. 10-3365, 2011 WL
5869605, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2011). “Where any available procedure remains for the applicant
to raise the question presented in the courts of the state, the applicant has not exhausted the
available remedies.” Tinsley, 2011 WL 5869605 at *3; see also 28 U.S.C.
8.
§ 2254(c).
In his habeas petition, Petitioner states that, following the order of the trial court
continuing his commitment, he filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey
—
Appellate
Division. (ECF No. 1 at 4). In his petition, however, Petitioner further states that he did not seek
review by a higher state court, in this case the New Jersey Supreme Court. (Id.). The only reason
Petitioner provides in his petition for his failure to petition the New Jersey Supreme Court for
certification is that the “Office of the Public Defender refused to submit a petition for certification”
2
on his behalf, and “it is not a matter of right to seek certification before same.” (Id. at 7). That the
New Jersey Supreme Court likely would not have granted certification, however, does not excuse
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims by filing a petition requesting certification as that
procedure remains available to Petitioner. Tinsley, 2011 WL 5869605 at *3• Likewise, Petitioner
has failed to present facts showing that the Public Defender’s refusal to file on Petitioner’s behalf
in any way prevented Petitioner himself from filing a pro se petition for certification. As such,
based on the information contained in the petition and Petitioner’s failure to in any way respond
to this Court’s Order directing him to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as
unexhausted, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his claims, and that this Court must
dismiss Petitioner’s petition without prejudice on that basis. See, e.g., Malloiy v. Bickell, 563 F.
App’x 212, 215 (3d Cir. 2014).
9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c), a petitioner may not appeal from a final order in a habeas
proceeding where that petitioner’s detention arises out of his state court conviction unless he has
“made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” “A petitioner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution
ofhis constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude that the issues presented here are adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least,
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because
jurists of reason could not disagree with this Court’s conclusion that Petitioner’s habeas claims are
3
____,
unexhausted based on the record before this Court and Petitioner’s failure to respond to the Court’s
Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 5), Petitioner’s habeas petition is inadequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further at this time, and Petitioner must be denied a certificate of
appealability as to this Court’s dismissal of his petition for lack of exhaustion.
10. In conclusion, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion, and Petitioner shall be DENIED a certificate of
appealability. An appropriate order follows.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
August
2016
HLinares’
n d States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?