HAZEL v. CHETIRKIN et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that within thirty (30) days, Respondents shall file supplemental briefing addressing Petitioner's August 23, 2016 PCR filing and its effect on his AEDPA limitations period, attaching any exhibits that evince all relevant st ate court filing dates; that Petitioner may file a reply within 14 days of the receipt of Respondents' supplemental briefing. Respondents' motion to dismiss 13 is ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending receipt of the ordered supplemental briefing, to be reopened by the Court upon receipt of Respondents' supplemental briefing. Signed by Judge Julien Xavier Neals on 1/28/2025. (ld)(n/m) Modified on 1/29/2025 (jdg, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JUSTIN HAZEL,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 21-19981 (JXN)
v.
ROBERT CHETIRKIN and THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Respondents.
NEALS, District Judge
Petitioner Justin Hazel (“Petitioner”), an individual currently confined at East Jersey State
Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss (the
“Motion”) the Petition as time-barred (ECF No. 13), and Petitioner filed a reply (ECF No. 14).
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the parties’ submissions and finds that supplemental briefing
on the issue of timeliness is warranted.
According to the records provided by the parties, an Essex County Grand Jury returned
Indictment 11-07-1306, charging Petitioner with murder, N.J.S.A. § 2C:11-3A(1)(2) (count one);
unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-5D (count two); and possession of a weapon
for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. § 2C:39:4D (count three). (ECF No. 13-1 at 1.) On September
14, 2012, a jury found Petitioner guilty of all counts of the Indictment. (Id.) On April 15, 2013, the
Honorable Thomas M. Moore, J.S.C., sentenced Petitioner to a total of thirty-six-and-one-half
(36.5) years imprisonment, with an 85% period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early
Release Act (“NERA”), N.J.S.A. § 2C:43-7.2. (Id.) Petitioner filed a direct appeal.
On September 23, 2015, the Appellate Division affirmed Petitioner’s conviction but
remanded for reconsideration of whether the sentences should run consecutively or concurrently.
(See ECF No. 13-2.) On remand, the sentences for his three charges were run concurrently,
resulting in a reduction of his sentence to 35 years, with 30 years of parole ineligibility. (See ECF
No. 13 at 2.) On January 21, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for
certification. (ECF No. 13-3.)
Respondents submit that on March 13, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief (“PCR”), which the trial court denied. (ECF No. 13 at 2, citing ECF No. 13-4.) Respondents
argue that at the time of the filing of his PCR petition, the instant federal habeas petition was
already untimely. (See id.) However, in his response to Respondents’ Motion, Petitioner argues
that his PCR petition was originally filed on August 23, 2016, and was dismissed without prejudice
on June 30, 2017, with instruction to re-file by April 14, 2018. (See ECF No. 14 at 3.) Petitioner
also argues that Respondents erred in stating that his PCR was filed on March 13, 2018, when it
was filed on April 13, 2018. (Id.) Respondents have not filed a reply brief.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104132, tit. I, § 101 (1996) imposes a one-year period of limitation on a petitioner seeking to challenge
his state conviction and sentence through a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Under § 2244(d)(1), the limitation period runs from the latest
of:
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review
or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action
in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the
applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
2
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by
the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court
and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); see also Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1999). “[T]he statute
of limitations set out in § 2244(d)(1) should be applied on a claim-by-claim basis.” Fielder v.
Varner, 379 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to § 2244(d), evaluation of the timeliness of a § 2254 petition requires a
determination of, first, when the pertinent judgment became “final” and, second, the period during
which an application for state PCR was “properly filed” and “pending.” The judgment is
determined to be final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking such
review, including the ninety (90)day period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 653-54 (2012). The AEDPA
limitations period is tolled during the time a properly filed PCR petition is pending in the state
courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see also Thompson v. Adm’r New Jersey State Prison, 701 F. App’x
118, 121 (3d Cir. 2017); Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80, 85 (3d Cir.
2013). A properly filed application is one that the Court accepts for filing by the appropriate court
officer, and the Petitioner files the application within the time limits prescribed by the relevant
jurisdiction. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005).
It appears that Petitioner’s conviction became final within the meaning of AEDPA on April
20, 2016, ninety (90) days after the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification of his direct
appeal on January 21, 2016. (ECF No. 13-3); see Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands,
705 F.3d 80, 84 (3d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he expiration of the time for seeking direct review is the
3
deadline for petitioning for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.”) Thus, absent statutory
tolling, Petitioner’s AEDPA one-year time limitation expired one year later, on April 20, 2017.
To qualify for statutory tolling, a post-conviction petition must be “properly filed” and
“pending” in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In New Jersey, petitioners have five years
from the date the trial court enters a judgment of conviction to file a PCR petition. See N.J. Ct. R.
3:22-12(a). A timely PCR petition filed during the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period will toll
the limitations period; a timely PCR petition filed after the expiration of the one-year limitations
period, however, will not revive that one-year period. See Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 394–95
(3d Cir. 2004) (“The state habeas petition had no effect on tolling, because an untimely state postconviction petition is not properly filed for purposes of tolling and, in any event, the limitations
period had already run when it was filed.”); see also, e.g., Rodriguez v. New Jersey, No. 18-12570,
2019 WL 2193498, at *2 (D.N.J. May 20, 2019); Banks v. Pierce, No. 17-2961, 2018 WL 1446402,
at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2018); Shoatz v. DiGuglielmo, No 07-5424, 2011 WL 767397, at *1 n.2
(E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2011) (“[B]ecause all of petitioner’s subsequent PCR[ ] petitions were filed after
his one-year limitation period expired . . . none of these filings entitle petitioner to statutory tolling,
regardless of their disposition.”).
Respondents argue that Petitioner submitted his first PCR petition on March 13, 2018, after
the AEDPA one-year time period for filing a timely federal habeas petition had expired on April
20, 2017. Therefore, Respondents argue that Petitioner’s PCR petition did not toll the AEDPA
limitations period, and the instant Petition is untimely. However, Petitioner submits that his PCR
petition was originally filed on August 23, 2016. Petitioner appears to argue that because the PCR
petition was dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2017, with instruction to re-file by April 14,
2018, his AEDPA limitations period was tolled during the entirety of that time. As Respondents
4
failed to address Petitioner’s August 23, 2016 filing and the effect, if any, it had on Petitioner’s
AEDPA limitations period, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is necessary on this issue.
Petitioner does not present any basis for equitable tolling in his response to Respondents’
Motion. The Court will provide Petitioner an opportunity to address any equitable tolling
arguments he may have in his reply to Respondents’ supplemental briefing. Accordingly, in the
interests of justice,
IT IS on this 28th day of January 2025,
ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall file
supplemental briefing addressing Petitioner’s August 23, 2016 PCR filing and its effect on his
AEDPA limitations period, attaching any exhibits that evince all relevant state court filing dates;
it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner may file a reply within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of
Respondents’ supplemental briefing, including any equitable tolling arguments that he may wish
to raise; it is further
ORDERED
that
Respondents’
motion
to
dismiss
(ECF
No.
13)
is
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending receipt of the ordered supplemental briefing,
to be reopened by the Court upon receipt of Respondents’ supplemental briefing; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by
regular U.S. mail and upon Respondents electronically.
________________________
JULIEN XAVIER NEALS
United States District Judge
5
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?