Schumaker v. Ortiz, 20-1847 (NLH). (2020)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20200310d43
Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2020
Summary: OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . Petitioner Brian William Schumaker seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. See ECF No. 1 (petition). Under the local rules, "[u]nless prepared by counsel, petitions to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall be in writing (legibly handwritten in ink or typewritten), signed by the petitioner or movant, on forms supplied by the Clerk." L. Civ. R. 81.2(a). Petitioner did not submit his habeas
Summary: OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . Petitioner Brian William Schumaker seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. See ECF No. 1 (petition). Under the local rules, "[u]nless prepared by counsel, petitions to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall be in writing (legibly handwritten in ink or typewritten), signed by the petitioner or movant, on forms supplied by the Clerk." L. Civ. R. 81.2(a). Petitioner did not submit his habeas ..
More
OPINION
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
Petitioner Brian William Schumaker seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1 (petition).
Under the local rules, "[u]nless prepared by counsel, petitions to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall be in writing (legibly handwritten in ink or typewritten), signed by the petitioner or movant, on forms supplied by the Clerk." L. Civ. R. 81.2(a). Petitioner did not submit his habeas petition on the Clerk's form.
For the reason set forth above, the Clerk of Court will be ordered to administratively terminate this Petition without prejudice.1 The Clerk will be instructed to reopen this matter once Petitioner submits the appropriate Clerk's form. An appropriate Order will be entered.
FootNotes
1. Such an administrative termination is not a "dismissal" for purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is reopened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was originally submitted timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases and explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over, and can re-open, administratively closed cases).
Source: Leagle
