GOODWIN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 5/4/17. (cm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and
WARDEN CHARLES GREEN,
Civ. No. 17-1408 (JMV)
VAZQUEZ, United States District Judge
Petitioner Robert Goodwin, a prisoner incarcerated in Northern State Prison in Newark,
New Jersey, seeks to reopen this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by submitting an application to
proceed without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF
No. 3-1.) Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. See 28 U.S.C.
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, a District Court Judge must promptly examine a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, and “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct
the Clerk to notify the petitioner.” For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the
petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
Petitioner was convicted of second degree insurance fraud in the Essex County Superior
Court on November 14, 2012. (ECF No. 1, ¶2.) The Appellate Division reversed the conviction
on April 23, 2014. (Id., ¶9); State v. Goodwin, 2014 WL 1613446 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr.
23, 2014). The State petitioned for certification, and the New Jersey Supreme Court granted
certification, reversed the Appellate Division, and reinstated the conviction on January 19, 2016.
State v. Goodwin, 224 N.J. 102, 105 (N.J. 2016). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction
relief (“PCR”) in the Essex County Superior Court Criminal Division, and the PCR Court’s
decision is pending. (Id. at 6.)
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) provides:
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not
be granted unless it appears that—
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; . . .
See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999) (“the state prisoner must give the state courts
an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas
petition.”) “[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review
process.” Id. at 845. Therefore, Petitioner must await the decision of the PCR Court on his
petition, and if he is not granted relief, he must appeal to the Appellate Division, and then file a
petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court if necessary. Then, if he is not afforded
relief, he may promptly file his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1
Petitioner should be aware there is a one-year statute of limitations for petitions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In most cases, the one-year period begins to run on “the date
For the reasons discussed above, the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
An appropriate Order follows.
s/ John Michael Vazquez
JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ
United States District Judge
on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the
time for seeking such review.” Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A). A properly-filed application for postconviction relief or other collateral review with respect to the particular judgment or claim will
toll the running of the statute of limitations, but it does not reset the one-year period if it began to
run before the PCR petition was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
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?