Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 5/22/2023. (dam)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-01883-SDW Document 18 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3120 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PHILIP S. PATRICK, Civil Action No. 22-1883 (SDW) Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OPINION v. WARDEN, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. IT APPEARING THAT: 1. On or about April 3, 2022, Petitioner Philip S. Patrick, filed a counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, challenging his state court conviction and sentence in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Union County. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner thereafter filed a corrected, counseled petition. (ECF No. 7). 2. Respondents filed an answer to the corrected petition on August 25, 2022. (ECF No. 15). In that answer, Respondents raised the affirmative defense that ground three of the petition is unexhausted because it was not fairly presented to the state courts. (Id. at 30-35). Petitioner filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 16). 3. On April 11, 2023, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), this Court directed Petitioner to show cause, within 30 days, as to why his corrected, counseled habeas petition should not be dismissed without prejudice because it contains an unexhausted claim. Petitioner was given the opportunity to withdraw the unexhausted claim or seek a stay and abeyance of his petition, while he exhausts this claim in the state courts, but he failed to respond. 1 Case 2:22-cv-01883-SDW Document 18 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3121 Therefore, this Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice, as a mixed habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). An appropriate Order follows. May 22 2023 DATE: ____________, ______________________ Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Judge 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?