SOTO v. ARTHUR et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 2/29/2016. (kas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON

MARITZA SOTO,
Petitioner,

Civil Action
No. 15-5610 (AET)

v.
VALERIE ARTHUR, ADMINISTRATOR,
et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Respondent.

THOMPSON, District Judge:
Before the Court is Petitioner Maritza Soto's amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Docket Entry 3) .
1.

Petitioner, a state-sentenced inmate incarcerated at

Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, submitted a letter
to the Court on May 27, 2015,

(Docket Entry 1), which was

inadvertently docketed in a prior civil suit, Soto v. Behot, et
al., No. 98-2574

2.

(D.N.J. Jun. 4, 2015).

As Petitioner was requesting relief from her state

sentence, the Court ordered the Clerk to open a new proceeding
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Docket Entry 2). The Court

administratively terminated the petition pending the submission
of the § 2254 form and application to pro'ceed in forma pauperis.
(Docket Entry 2).

3.

Petitioner submitted an amended petition and

application to proceed in forma pauperis on September 16, 2015.
(Docket Entry 3)
4.

By Order dated September 22, 2015, this Court granted

Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and
advised Petitioner of her rights under Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d
414 (3d Cir. 2000).

(Docket Entry 4). The Court advised

Petitioner of the requirements of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), and ordered the
Petitioner to advise the Court as to how she wanted to proceed.
(Docket Entry 4).
5.

Petitioner sent a letter to the Court on October 13,

2015, requesting more time to respond to the Court's Mason
Order.

(Docket Entry 5). By Order dated October 19, 2015, the

Court granted Petitioner until December 21, 2015, to respond.
(Docket Entry 5) .
6.

Petitioner submitted a letter on November 16, 2015,

listing certain aspects of her trial she wanted to the Court to
review, including the performance of her attorney and
evidentiary concerns.
7.

(Docket Entry 6).

Petitioner's response to this Court's Mason order does

not comply with the Order or with the habeas rules. Petitioner
was instructed she could either have her petition ruled upon as
filed or withdraw her petition and file one all-inclusive
2

petition subject to AEDPA's statute of limitations.
Entry 4 i

5) . Instead, Petitioner submitted a letter raising new

claims for this Court's consideration.
8.

(Docket

(Docket Entry 6).

Habeas Rule 2 provides in relevant part:
(c) Form. The petition must:
(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to
the petitioner;
(2) state the facts supporting each ground;
(3) state the relief requested;
(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten;
and
(5) be signed under penalty of perjury

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c). The amended petition does not comply
with this rule as it does not contain all of the available
grounds for relief.
9.

As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, and pro se filings

must be construed leniently, the Court will give Petitioner one
more chance to submit a complete § 2254 petition. The petition
must specifically identify all of the claims Petitioner intends
to raise for this Court's review, set forth the facts supporting
the claims, and contain sufficient information for the Court to
determine whether she has exhausted state remedies as to those
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c).

3

10.

As the amended petition does not conform to the Rules

Governing § 2254 Proceedings,' the case shall be administratively
terminated.
11.

If Petitioner wishes to reopen her case, she must

submit a second amended petition, on the appropriate form, that
specif~cally

identifies every claim she wants the Court to

review.
12.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion':--

Chief U.S. District

4