FIELDS v. WARDEN OF NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 1/11/2016. (kas, )

RECEIVED
JAN 11 2016

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

AT 8:30
WILLIAM T. WALSH
CLERK

MARK FIELDS,
Civil Action
No. 15-8471 (AET)

Petitioner,

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

WARDEN NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON,
Respondent.

THOMPSON, District Judge:

Before the Court is Petitioner Mark Fields' petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

2254.

(Docket

Entry 1) .
1.

Petitioner, a state-sentenced inmate incarcerated at'

New Jersey State Prison, filed an application for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§

2254, on December 19, 2013.

(Docket

Entry 1).
2.

By .Order dated December 27, 2013, the Honorable Joel

A. Pisano administratively terminated the petition for failure
to submit the filing fee or a complete application to proceed in
forma pauperis.

3.

(Docket Entry 2).

Petitioner submitted an amended application.to proceed

in forma pauperis on March 5, 2014.

4.
1, 2015.

(Docket Entry 3).

This matter was reassigned to this Court on September

M

5.

On September 18, 2015, the Court entered an Order

advising Petitioner of his rights under Mason v. Meyers, 208
F.3d 414

(3d Cir. 2000), as well as the consequences of filing a

2254 petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

§

Penalty Act ("AEDPA").
6.

(Docket Entry 5).

The Court ordered Petitioner to advise the Court

within 45 days as to whether he wanted to have the pending §
2254 petition ruled upon as filed, or whether he wanted to
withdraw the pending § 2254 Petition and file one all-inclusive
§

2254 petition subject to the one-year statute of limitations.

(Docket Entry 5
7.

~

5).

On October 26, 2015, the Court received a letter brief

and accompanying exhibits from Petitioner arguing the merits of
his petition.
8.

(Docket Entry 6) .

Petitioner did not submit an amended petition or

indicate that he wished to withdraw his pending petition.
9.

By Order dated December 7, 2015, this Court severed

Plaintiff's habeas petition into two separate actions.

(Docket

Entry 9); see Fields v. Warden of New Jersey State Prison, No.
13-7693. (D.N.J. filed Oct. 26, 2013). The instant action
consists of Petitioner's second and third grounds for relief.
(Docket Entry 9).
10.

Section 2254(a) provides in relevant part: "[A]

district court shall entertain an application for a writ of
2

habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
11.

Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to sua

sponte dismiss a habeas petition or application without ordering

a responsive pleading "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4.

relief in the district court .
12.

In Grounds Two and Three, Petitioner alleges

violations of his
First Amendment right to remain silent and legal access
to the Court [;] his Fourth Amendment Right to be free
from illegal seizures[;] his Fourteenth Amendment Right
to due process of law[;] his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment right to be free from official harassment and
intimidation [;] his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right
to be free from malicious prosecution[;] his Fourteenth
Amendment right to be free from arbitrary actions of
state parole officials[;] his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment
[right]
to be
free
of parole official
correctional deliberate indifference[;] his Fourth and
Eighth Amendment right to be free from crue.l and unusual
punishment.
(Docket Entry 1 at 58, 71).
13.

With the exception of Petitioner's Due Process,

Illegal Seizure, and Eighth Amendment claims, the stated alleged
constitutional violations, including his failure to train and
supervise claims, are not cognizable in habeas proceedings.
Those claims are more appropriately brought in a civil rights
3

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288
F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002)

("[W]hen the challenge is to a

condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiff's
favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, an
action under § 1983 is appropriate."). Those claims shall be
summarily dismissed for failure to state a basis for habeas
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rules 2 and 4. 1
14.

Likewise, Petitioner's claim that New Jersey's No

Early Release Act was violated is not cognizable on habeas
review. Section 2254 confers jurisdiction on district courts to
grant relief to those in

st~te

custody "only on the ground that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a)

(emphasis

added) . Petitioner may not base a claim for federal habeas
relief on violations of state law. This claim is also summarily
dismissed.
15.

Having screened the petition for summary dismissal, it

does not "plainly appear[ ] from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief

,,

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4. The State shall be ordered to answer

1

The Court declines to separate those claims into a new § 1983
proceeding as Plaintiff has already filed two such civil rights
actions in this Court, Civil Actions 13-7134 and 14-1139.
4

the Due Process, Illegal Seizure, and Eighth Amendment claims of
Grounds Two and Three.
16.

Date

l

An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

/
District Judge

5