ALFORD v. ELLIS et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 2/9/2016. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action Nos.
It appearing that:
1. Petitioner Craig Alford (“Petitioner”) previously submitted two Petitions for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
(Civil Action No. 15-6998, ECF No. 1; Civil
Action No. 15-7145, ECF No. 1.) In both Petitions, he identifies the challenged judgment of
conviction as a 1998 Pennsylvania state conviction for possession with intent to distribute;
aggravated assault; and reckless endangerment. (Pets.
¶J 2, 5.)
2. In an October 30, 2015 Opinion and Order, the Court informed Petitioner that the facts
alleged, and the relief Petitioner is seeking, were not entirely clear to the Court. To the extent
Petitioner was challenging a revocation of parole by the Pennsylvania Parole Board on his 1998
Pennsylvania state court conviction, the Court informed Petitioner that he must exhaust his claims
in Pennsylvania state court and then file a federal habeas petition in the appropriate Pennsylvania
district court. See 28 U.S.C.
224 1(d). To the extent Petitioner was challenging a New Jersey
state conviction or some action by the New Jersey Parole Board, he must clearly identify such
judgment of conviction or parole board action. The Court further informed Petitioner that it
appeared that any challenge to a conviction or New Jersey Parole Board decision was unexhausted.
As such, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice.
Thereafter, Petition filed a “Reconsideration or/Motion to ‘Stay’ Writ of Habeas
Corpus.” (Civil Action No. 15-6998, ECF No. 15; Civil Action No. 15-7145, ECF No. 11)
Specifically, Petitioner is seeking to have the Court stay his
§ 2254 Petition while he exhausts his
claims in state court. That request is denied.
4. Section 2254 provides that a writ “shall not be granted” unless (1) “the applicant has
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State...” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(l)(A). As
discussed by the Court in its previous Opinion, and as conceded by Petitioner in his Motion, all of
the grounds in the instant Petition are unexhausted.
5. When faced with a petition which contains an unexhausted claim, a district court has
four options: (1) stay the petition pending the outcome of state proceedings; (2) allow the petitioner
to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed on the exhausted claims; (3) dismiss the petition
without prejudice as unexhausted; or (4) deny the unexhausted claims on the merits under 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277—78 (2005); McLaughlin v. Shannon,
454 F. App’X 83, 86 (3d Cir. 2011); Mahoney v. Bostel, 366 F. App’x 368 371 (3d Cir. 2010);
Urcinoli v. Cathel, 546 F.3d 269, 276 (3d Cir. 2008).
6. Here, the stay and abeyance requested by Petitioner is not appropriate because it does
not appear that Petitioner will have a statute of limitations problem when he files new
Petitioner also alleges that the New Jersey Parole Board no longer has jurisdiction over him
because he is a Pennsylvania parolee, however, if that is the case, it is unclear as to why Petitioner
filed his habeas petition with this Court. He also argues that there are no state court remedies for
the relief he is seeking, but as previously explained to Petitioner, there are appeal rights available
for New Jersey Parole Board decisions. (See October 30 Opinion ¶ 5.)
petitions after exhausting his federal claims. See Williams v. Walsh, 411 F. App’x 459, 461 (3d
Cir. 2011) (“[w]here the timeliness of a habeas corpus petition is at issue, 28 U.S.C.
a District Court has the discretion to stay a
habeas petition to allow complete exhaustion in state
court”). As stated in the Court’s previous Opinion, it is not entirely clear to the Court which New
Jersey Parole Board decision Petitioner is even challenging. Nevertheless, it appears that any
decision was relatively recent and a substantial portion, if not all, of Petitioner’s one year statute
of limitations remains intact. See 28 U.S.C.
2244 (“[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply
to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of. the date on which the judgment
became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
With regard to the other options potentially available when courts are faced with
unexhausted claims, the Court is unable to allow Petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and
to proceed on the exhausted claims because his
§ 2254 Petition presents only unexhausted claims.
Moreover, at this early stage and with such limited information, the Court is unwilling to find that
Petitioner’s claims are plainly without merit and deny the unexhausted claims on the merits. See
To the extent the Court is mistaken about this conclusion, Petitioner shall so advise the Court
and the Court will reconsider the issue. However, the Court notes that even if Petitioner did have
a timeliness issue, he has failed to established good cause for his failure to exhaust; that his
unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious; and an absence of intentionally dilatory tactics.
See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78 (citations omitted) (“stay and abeyance is only appropriate when
the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims
first in state court. Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district court
would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly
Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277; Carracosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249, 255 n. 10 (3d Cir. 2008); Lambert,
387 F.3d 210, 260 n. 42 (3d Cir. 2004); Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 237—38 (3d Cir. 2002).
8. Therefore, as the Court previously found in its October Opinion and Order, dismissal
of the Petition without prejudice is warranted in this case because “dismissal of the entire petition
would [not] unreasonably impair the petitioner’s right to obtain federal relief.” Rhines, 544 U.S.
Petitioner’s request for a stay/reconsideration is denied and the Petition remains
dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a new
§ 2254 petition, subject
to the 365—day statute of limitations, after he exhausts his federal ground in all three levels of the
New Jersey courts.
9. This Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
10. An appropriate order follows.
Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.
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?