JEAN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 8/11/2016. (seb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
_________________________________________ :
WILHEM LOUIS JEAN,

Civ. No. 16-4077 (JMV)

OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Wilhelm Louis Jean, # J-2016-04113 / A# 077 027 542
Essex County Correctional Facility
354 Doremus Avenue
Newark, NJ 07105
Petitioner, pro se
On or about July 5, 2016, Petitioner Wilhelm Louis Jean filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2008 New Jersey State conviction
and sentence, and paid the $5 filing fee. (ECF No. 1). At this time, the Court will screen the
Petition for summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
(“Habeas Rules”). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition will be dismissed without
prejudice.
I.

THE PETITION

In his Petition, Petitioner asserts two grounds for relief, both premised on ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel. With respect to his grounds for relief, Petitioner states the
following:

GROUND ONE: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY
MISHANDLING PETITIONER’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM
Petitioner is actually innocent. The trial judge made a finding that this was a case
of domestic revenge where petitioner’s wife and her friend orchestrated a false
criminal case against appellant petitioner. Appellate counsel mishandled the
claim.
...
GROUND TWO: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON DIRECT
APPEAL, WHO ALSO FILED THE ORIGINAL PCR MOTION
Attorney Robert Pickett handled the direct appeal. He did not seek certification to
the N.J. Supreme Court. Instead, Mr. Pickett filed the original PCR motion.
When it was denied, Mr. Pickett did not appeal, causing the necessity of the 2nd
PCR motion to be filed pro se.
(Pet. 6, 8, ECF No. 1).
Petitioner does not provide any further information regarding his claims in his Petition.
II.

DICUSSION

Petitioner does not provide any supporting factual allegations in his Petition which would
allow the Court to properly conduct its sua sponte screening. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) requires that a petitioner “state the facts supporting each
ground.” Habeas Rule 2(c)(3). Here, in Ground One Petitioner states only that his appellate
counsel “mishandled” his claim of actual innocence. Petitioner fails develop this particular claim
and his conclusory allegation does not state a claim in a federal habeas action. See Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649, 125 S. Ct. 2562, 2566, 162 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2005) (“The habeas rule
instructs the petitioner to ‘specify all grounds for relief available to [him]’ and to ‘state the facts
supporting each ground.’”) (quoting Habeas Rule 2(c)). Likewise, in Ground Two, Petitioner
does not explain the rationale behind his claim, nor does he set forth any facts to support this
claim. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to comply with Habeas Rule 2, and the Petition will be
dismissed without prejudice.
2

Furthermore, the Court notes that Petitioner seeks as relief a “stay of all immigration
proceedings, admit to bail, and grant the writ of habeas corpus.” (Pet. 16, ECF No. 1). To the
extent Petitioner seeks relief related to pending immigration proceedings, such claims are not
cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner may
be able to raise challenges to his immigration proceedings before an immigration judge or the
Board of Immigration Appeals, or he may challenge his immigration detention in the federal
district court by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall
be given leave to file, within 45 days, an application to reopen accompanied by a proposed
amended petition which complies with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1

s/ John Michael Vazquez
JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ
United States District Judge
Dated: 08/11/16
At Newark, New Jersey

1

The Court makes no finding as to the timeliness of the Petition. However, the Court is mindful
of the one-year statute of limitations for filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Therefore, if the instant case is re-opened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is
not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was originally submitted timely. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988) (prisoner mailbox
rule).
3