MUHAMMAD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al, No. 2:2010cv00213 - Document 35 (D.N.J. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 9/18/12. (dc, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KWASI SEKOU MUHAMD (a.k.a, MICHAEL WINSTEAD), Civil Action No, 10-213 (CCC) Petitioner, OPINION NEW JERSEY, et al., Respondents. APPEARANCES: Ewasi Sekou Muhammad, Pro Se 422 750/13 9888C Southern State Correctional Facility 4295 Route 47 Delmont, NJ 08314 Barbara A. Rosenkrans, Assistant Prosecutor Essex County Prosecutor s Office 50 West Market Street Newark, NJ 07102 Attorney for Respondents CECCHI, District Judge Petitioner s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, January 27, Entry TO5 2012 as time-barred. 19 & 20) . (See Opinion and Order, 22, 27, Docket letitioner has since filed three motions seekino to reoren his case and sumolement his pleadinos. Entry Nos, filed & 31) (Docket Such motions are presently before the Court. Fesondents have opposed the motions. reasons, 1. Plaintiffs motions are denied. Motion to Reopen, filed February 14, As explained in this Court s Opinion, 2012 (the January For the following th 27 Opinion ), untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. 2012 filed on January 27, Petitioner s habeas filing was § 2244. At that time, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice to Petitioner filing a motion to reopen if he could demonstrate that his petition should have been tolled. On February 14, reopen. 2012, (Docket Entry No. to reopen his habeas case, Petitioner filed his first motion to 22) . In the motion, Petitioner seeks alleging that he was not aware that his constitutional rights were violated by the imposition of the parole supervision period until his PCR was decided. Petitioner argues that he discovered his claims upon his PCP. motion being returned denied. case law, Neither did petitioner s assigned counsel, the nor the amended NERA statute make it apparently present to discover the factual predicate of petitioner s constitutional claims of an excessive parole supervision period. 4, Docket Entry No. (Pet. s Br, 22) As explained in the January th 27 Opinion, the type of claim presented in Petitioner s motion to reopen does not serve to toll the statute. The Third Circuit has held that equitable tolling will be allowed if: (1 xesoondents have actively misled eti:oner, (2) petitioner in some extraordinary way has been urevenced from assertinc his riohts, or (3) petitioner has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum. Shannon, 322 F.3d 768, (2003) Here, . 773 (3rd Cirj, motion, denied, 539 U.S. 948 the case upon which Petitioner relies in support of his constitutional claims, (2004), cert. e Brown v. Blakely v, Washington, 542 U.S. 296 was decided prior to the filing of Petitioner s PCR and thus, was available to him to raise. evidence presented that Respondents There is no actively misled Petitioner, and Petitioner has not filed in the wrong forum. Likewise, statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. not apply under any section of the statute. the Blakely issue on appeal, § 2244(d) does Petitioner raised thus he cannot argue that there was a statecreated impediment to asserting his claim, that the claim arose after he filed his PCR and was unrecognized at that point, or that he couldn t have become aware of the claim prior to filing his NCR. For these reasons, Petitioner s first motion to reopen must be denied. 2ledJune112O12 Petitioner has also filed a motion to supplement his uleadi.ng pursuant to Fed. suoport of the motion, F. Civ. P. 15(d). in his brief in Petitioner asserts that the New Jersey No Early Reiea.se Act illecally confers judicial authority on the Parole Board, rendering his current incarceration for supervised rarole unlawful. (Pet. s Br. Point 2, Docket Entry No. Given that the Petition has been dismissed, 27-3). Petitioner s motion to supplement is inappropriate at this time and must be denied, This Court has found that Petitioner s habeas petition is untimely. Petitioner s arument that he should be permitted to supplement his pleading, based on a merits argument concerning the New Jersey statutes and filed after the case has been decided, is misplaced as there is currently no pleading to supplement. This case is closed. Thus, Petitioner s motion to supplement will be denied. 3. Motion to Reopen, filed July 11, In his second motion to reopen, Entry No. 31) , 2012 filed July 11, Petitioner argues that, expressed in his motion to supplement, 60 (b), 2012 (Docket for reasons previously under Fed. R. Civ. P. his case should be reopened. Rule 60(b) provides, in pertinent part: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (I) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, witn reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 55 0 ; (3 fraud whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no , lonoer enutabe; nys:ties reIer. or (6) any other reason that The general purpose of Rule 60(b) ... is to strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice must be done. Sec v of Health, 1978) Educ. & Welfare, 572 F.2d 976, (yuoted in Coltec Industries, 262, 271 (3d Cir. Inc. v. 977 Bouqhner v, (3d Cir. Hobqood, 280 F.3d 2002)) A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court guided by accepted legal principles applied in light of all the relevant circumstances. Rule 60(b), however, does not confer upon the district courts a standardless residual of discretionary power to set aside judgments. Rather, relief under Rule 60(b) is available only under such circumstances that the overriding interest in the finality and repose of judgments may properly be overcome. The remedy provided by Rule 60(b) is extraordinary, and [only] special circumstances may justify granting relief under it. I Tischio v. Bontex, Inc., 16 F. Supp.2d 511, 533 (D.N.J. 1998) (internal citations omitted) Relief is available only in cases evidencing extraordinary circumstances. (1350 ; See Ackermann v, Stradley v. Cortez, United States, 518 F.2d 488, 493 340 U.S. (3d Cir. 193 1975) adenuate proof and its exceptional character must be clearly established. FUIC v. Aiker, 234 F.2d 113, ll6l7 (3d Cir. . A To ohe exoeno a moving party seeks to relicigate the court s prior conclusions, Rule 60(b) is not an appropriate vehicle. [Ciourts must be guided by the well established principle that a motion under Rule 60(b) appeal. may not be used as a substitute for It follows therefore that it is improper to grant relief under Rule 60(b) (6) if the aggrieved party could have reasonably sought the same relief by means of appeal. Martinez-McBean v. Government of Virgin Islands, 911 (citations omitted) (3d Cir, 1977) In this case, 562 F.2d 908, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies any of the extraordinary circumstances warranting 60(b) relief. Rather, he seeks to add a claim that the New Jersey statute at issue violates the separation of powers doctrine by establishing mandatory parole supervision Point 2, Docket Entry No. 31-1) This Court has found that . Petitioner s claims are time-barred; thus, arguments must be rejected, Rule 60(b) (Pet. s Br. his merits-based as his case is closed. Petitioner s motion to reopen does not demonstrate that his petition should be reopened based upon tolling principles. Therefore, this motion is likewise denied, 1 CONCLUSION For he denied. foregoing reasons, PeiLioner s motions are hereby An appropriate Order foliows. CLAIRE C. CECCHI United States District Judge Dated: 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
