HERRILL v. RICCI et al, No. 2:2010cv03575 - Document 3 (D.N.J. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/26/2010. (ld, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY HERRELL, Civil Rction No. 10 3575 (CRC) Dockets.Justia.com RANSIAN J. OPINION MICHELLE PICCI, et. al., Respondents. APPEARANCES: RAHMAN J. HERRELL, Petitioner 8ro Se # 430928/838770B New Jersey State Prison P.O. Box 861 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 CHESLER, District Judge This matter is before the Court by application of petitioner Rahman J. U.S.C. Herrell for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 § 2254, in which he challenges his New Jersey state court conviction and sentence. For reasons discussed below, it appears from review of the petition papers provided by petitioner that his § 2254 habeas petition may be subject to dismissal as timebarred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 48 (2003), it is apronriate for a 1 Petitioner, RaIiman J. Herrell ( Herrell ), filed a petition for habeas corrus relief or. or about July 14, 2210. to the allegations conrainet in his petition, Fierrell was According convicted in the Superior Cou.rt of New Jersey, Essex County, or about Jecember 4, on one count of 2021, after a purposeful and knowing murder, ury trial, on unlawful possession of a handgun, and possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose. He was district court to raise the issue sua sponte prior to ordering an answer. Recently, the Supreme Court held that district courts are permitted to consider sue sponte the timeliness of a state inmate s habeas petition; however, the district court must accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions on the issue of time bar if the record shows that the petition is untimely. Day v. McDonopq, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 1684 (April 25, 2006) 2 Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a habeas petition is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivers it to prison officials for mailing, not on the date the petition is ultimately filed with the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 71 (1988); see also Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 112 13 (3d Cir. 1988) (applying prison mailbox rule set forth in Houston, which dealt with filing of an appeal, to a pro se prisoner s filing of a habeas petition) Although the Court is unable to determine the exact date that Herrell handed his petition to prison officials for mailing, Herrell sioned a certification of his petition on Ju.ly 14, 2.010, See 2endersor v. Frank, 155 E.3d 159, 16.3-64 (3d Cir. 1988) (using date prisoner signed petition as date he handed it to prison officials for purposes of calculating timeliness of habeas petition) Accordingly, the Court finds that July 14, 2010 was the date this petition was filed for purposes of calculating the timeliness of the petition, and not the date the petition was received by the Clerk of the Court on April 6, 2009. . . sentenced to a life term of imrisonrner±t with a 30 year parole disnualifler. )Petitior, ¶5 1 6) Herrell filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. Jersey, On or about Ocoober 6, Anellate Division, counts. (Pet., 2033, he Superior Court of New affirmed the conviction on all Herrell does not indicate whether he filed ¶ 9). a netition for certification with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Thereafter, relief ( 9CR ) Herrell filed a petition for post conviction before the state sentencing court in New Jersey. The state 9CR petition was denied on November 6, 11) . 2006. (Pet., ¶ Herrell does not state whether he appealed from the denial of his state PCR petition. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, Estelle v. 404 U.S. 519, Gamble, 520 429 (1972) A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. v. Hahn, 353 5. 3d 116, 113 General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 Brierley, U.S. 912 414 F.2d 552, (1970). 555 (3d Dir. 1998) (3d Cir. (3d Cir. ; Lewis v. Attorney 1989); 1969), See Royce United States v. cert. denied, 399 III. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS Ide limitaLion period for a § 2254 habeas petition is set forth in 28 U,S.I. § 2244(d), which provides in pertinent part: (1) A I-year period of li.mitations shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the j udgrnent of a State court. The Limitation period shall run from the latest of (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this section. Section 2244(d) became effective on April 24, 1996 when the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was signed into law. Cir. 1998); Duarte v. Burns v. Morton, Herschberqer, 947 F. ( AEDPA ) 134 F.3d 109, Supp. 146, 147 ill (3d (D.N.J. 1996). Thus, pursuant to § 2244(d), evaluation of the timeliness of a § 2254 petition requires a determination of, pertinent judgment became final, and, second, first, when the the period of time bunco which an application for state post conviction relief was tzrocenly filed and nendicon A state-court criminal judgment becomes final within the meaning of § 2244(d) (1) by the conclusion of direct review or by 4 he exciracion of dma for soaking such review, incLuding the 90- day ceriod for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Sucreme Court. See Swartz v. 410 (3d Cir. Horn, Cir. 1999); 2000); U.S. Morris v, Sup. Ct. B. Meyers, 187 F.3d 333, 204 S.3d 417, 337 n.1 3d 13. The limitations period is tolled, however, during the time a properly filed application for state post-conviction relief is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2). An application for state post conviction relief is considered pending within the meaning of § 2244(d) (2), and the limitations period is statutorily tolled, from the time it is properly filed, during the period between a lower state court s decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher court, Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 and through the time in which an appeal could be filed, the appeal is never filed, Swartz v. Meyers, (2002), even if 204 F.3d at 420 24. An 3 application is properly filed when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. These usually prescribe, for example, the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be iodqed, and the renuisite filing fee. in some jurisdictions he filing requirements also include, for example, preconditions imposed on particular abusive filers, or on all filers generally. But in common usage, the question whether an application has been properly filed is quite separate from the question whether the claims contained in the application are meritorious and free of procedural bar. Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 9 (2000) (footnotes and citations omitted) C) it it it CD Di H ¢ Hit Di it H0 C) U) it H- 0 it U) it Di it C) it CD C) Cl U) it Di it CD it Cl CD CD U) C) it Cl CD H E H- ¢ H CT) Cl it HC) C) Cl HU) C) Di U) CD it Cl CD H C) C) it 0 CD Cl Di C) HU) Hit Cl CD C) Di C) U) CD - H- it Hit Di it H0 C) U) Cl CD it Cl CD - NJ Cl H it it C) H) CD Di H CD C) CD CD H H0 Cl C) 0 it it 0 CD H U) CD H Cl Cl Di Cl Cl H- it H- H H) CD Di it 0 Di Cl Cl C) U) it H0 Di H it Cl HU) C) H- C) C) H it 0 Di C) Li) Cl CD U) C) C) CD Di CD H- Hit Di it it H- 0 it U) it Di it C) it CD Cl CD it it Cl Di it it CD Cl Di it Di C) CD >< 0 it Cl Cl C) it U) CD C) Di 0 Cl CD it 0 it HC) Cl it hi)- -- NJ NJ 0 CD it Cl Hit H CD Cl it 0 it Cl CD H U) C) H it 0 it Cl C) U) CT) CX) NJ C) Cl CD H C) 0 Cl H- H it C) 0 Cl C) H- Cl it Cl CD it 0 H CD CD it Hit H0 C) Cl Cl Cl C) U) it Di it CD U) H- Cl CD H it Cl H- Cl CD H- it Cl) >< HI 0 it it C) it CD Di U) it U) - Cl CD H H CD it it E Cl CD C) C) Cl CD it 0 it C) C) Cl Cl CD it Hit H0 Di 0 H CD < U) it Cl CD HC) CD H CD Cl CD it it 0 Cl Hit it HC) C) it it HU) Hit C) U) C) 0 C) H it CD CD H U) C) Cl it Cl CD Hit Cl C) CD H it H0 H Di H H- it 0 H Cl H ¢ C) it CD U) Di U) it Hit CD Cl C) C) (C) CD H it it Cl CD CD 0 0 it C) 0 C) H it CD U) C) Cl H CD CD Cl it Hit Cl C) CD H it Hit HC) Di it H0 C) it 0 H CD it Hit H0 C) Cl Di it CD Cl H- H CD Cl Cl Cl CD H H CD it it C) Cl Cl H 0 it CD C) it C) Cl Cl CD it Cl CD H it 0 H CD U) Cl CD C) it C) Hi NJ C) - C) 0 C) it 0 Cl CD H C) C) it Cl Di it C) it CD C) C) CD H it Cl CD CD C) Cl Cl CD it it Di it CD it Cl CD U) U) it Di it CD Di Di it it CD H C) Di it H- it CD Cl CD C) Di HC) it H0 C) C) H C) 0 0 it CD C) it Cl Cl C) U) it C) CD H H CD it H CD Di C) it CD CD C) CD Cl it H H HC) it H0 C) C) C) 0 HU) Cl CD Cl it it HH Di C) 0 U) H- < H- H- D Di it H0 HC) it 0 H Di C) < Cl H 0 H HCl CD 0 it C) U) CD Cl 0 Cl CD it C) Cl ¢ NJ C) C) it it it it U) CT) C) it Hi CD Cl H- C) Cl CD ¢ C) CD H it - - ¢ HH C) Hi Cl - NJ it - it Hi it Hi Cl U) ¢ HH C) Hi Cl - NJ C) -H Cl HDi CD it Cl Cl Cl Hit Di 0 it it C) C) 0 C) CD ¢ -- NJ C) C) it it it it U) CT) C) it Hi CD Cl H- C) Cl CD ¢ 0 it it Cl çt CD C) H C) CD H 0 C) it it it C) ¢HU) it H HC) H 0 C CD U) U) it NJ C) J - Cl HDi Cl Cl I it Di Cl CD it 0 it it () C) C) C) CD it Cl it C) CD C) H 0 it it it it H HC) U) C) H- H U) C) C CD ft U) - ¢ NJ C) C) - Hi CX) it C) - it C) -H it C) it U) NJ -H it ¢ U) Cl) it C) H HCl Di U) ¢H CD C) H ¢CD C) Di ii it U) CD CD ¢ C) 0 C) H it CD H CD Cl U) C) Di it CD U) U) it CD Cl it CC C) H- Cl CD it C) H- H H- Di CD H it H0 H C) it 0 Hit C H 0 H Cl CD H CD H it CD 0 C) C) Cl CD it Hit H0 U) 0 C) CD H U) H H- Cl Di it CD it U) Di it 0 C) H) CD C) C) Cl CD Cl it Cl CD H HC) Cl Cl C) 0 it CD U) it Di it C) it H) CD Di H CD C) 0 CD it Cl it 0 it it C) 0 it CD U) Cl 0 NJ Cl NJ NJ Cl - U) U) C, CD Di it HU) it Hl)T it it it C) C) C) C) I C) C) C) C) H- U) C) H- U) - C) C) CX) U) ¢ CU) C) C) - U) C) C) HU) C) U) C) H(U) U) U) C) U) C LU) U) C) HU) it C) U) C) U) C) C) U) Hit it it C) U) it U) C HU) U) it H U) C U) Hit H C) H- HH C) H C) U) C) H C) C) HU) U) it C) () NJ C) C) U) C) C) HU) C) it U) U) C) C) U) C) U) U) U) it )C C) C) U) U) it C) < H- C) U) H- C) HC) H HC) C) it U) C) C) U) U) U) C) U) U) U) H- H- C U) U) U) C) U) HC) C) U) H C) - ¢ ¢ N) C) C) C) - ¢ Ci) ¢ U) U) U) U) U) U) U) H U) C) C) N) - C) C) H U) ¢ U) C) C) U) U) U) U) ¢ C) C) CU) U) C) C) C) C) C) (1 H- C U) C) it C) C) C) U) C) H- C) C) U) C) C) CX) - C) U) U) HU) C) ¢ Hit U) U) U) C) H 0 C) C) U) U) HU) U) U) C) C) HC) U) H C) U) U) it H- -< U) it U) it C) H U) it C) HU) it U) U) U) H C C) U) C) C) it C) U) C) U) Ct) C) U) < C) H- HC) U) U) it 0 U) H- C) it C) U) HH C) H U) U) U) U) it it C) LU) it U) U) it U) 1) U) C) U) H H U) C) C) C) C) 0 H C) U) C) ¢ C) HH C) C) it U) H C - C) U) H C) H U) C) H ¢ U) U) C) C) C) C) C) C) 0) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) H- ¢ H C) C) C) C) C) NJ C) N) C) C) H- C) U) U) - ¢ j C) C) C) ¢ C) C) C) C) C) U) it H C) C) C) C) C) C) H H U) C it C) C) it U) C) Ci) it U) it U) C) H- C) C) U) U) it U) U) it C) U) H C H U) U) H ( U) U) U) HH- C) C) it C) C) U) it U) H- U) C) U) HU) C) it C) U) it - ¢ ¢ U) U) U) C) U) C) U) C) H U) X it H U) U) U) C) ct it C) U) N) it U) U). U) U) C) C) Hit HC) U) U) it U) C) C) LU) U) CU) U) U) U) H U) U) U) U) C) U) C) it HC U) C) U) U) U) C) U) U) - it U) U) U) HU) U) it U) it U) U) HU) U) C) U) HH C) C) it U) C) H- U) U) it H- it C) U) it C) C) U) it it H- U) C) U) H U) H U) H it U) U) C C) H HC it it C) HU) N) C) C) C) - CX) C) C) ¢ i- U) ¢ (2 C) C) U) C) U) U) U) U) C) H U) Cl H U) I C) U) H it H- U) H it C) < C) U) H it C) C) U) it C) U) C H C) U) HU) C) U) U) C) U) U) < U) Ci C) U) C) it C) HU) U) U) U) U) U) U) C) H- U) C it U) U) H- it U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) H- H- U) U) it U) H- U) C) U) C) U) C) C) H U) it C) it H- it C) it C) H C) C) H HU) it U) C) U) C) U) U) U) U) U) H- it C) U) H U) U) U) C) HU) C) U) U) U) C) U) C) U) C) it - it U) U) Hit C) C) it U) C) U) H- C) U) H C) C) C) C U)J C) Z C) C) U) U) U) U) U) U) H C) U) C) it U) C () C) H C) U) U) it C) U) it C) U) it Hrt HC) U) C) C) C) N) N) 0) C) (1) ¢ CC N) 0) a H- H- it C) U) it C) C) C) U) it U) it U) U) it C) HC) U) U) U) U) U) H- C) C) ¢ H C) U) U) C) C) U) U) U) C) U) C) U) U) C) H U) C) U) C) C) H- C) C) H H H C) C) C) C) H H- U) C) U) U) C) Hit U) it H- C) C) C) U) U) I U) U) U) H C) U) it HU) C) U) C) U) U) C) U) E Hit U) C) U) U) U) C) C) C) U) H U) C) - C) U) H H U) C) C) C) U) < U) H it C) U) C) U) U) U) U) U) U) it C) U) it U) C) C) U) C) U) U) C) it C). C) U) U) C) U) U) U) C) - NJ C) C) C) - U) C) U) U) it H- U) C) C) it H U) U) U) C) C) U) U) ct Hit HC) U) C) C) U). CU) U) U) U) C) HU) - (U) C) U) U) U) C) U) U) U) it C) ( U) C) C) U) Hit H- it U) C) C) C) C) it U) U) ct U) U) H- U) C) HC) C) C) U) H H U) C) C) it C) U). it U) C) H U) U) U) C) C) H- C) C) U) H it appropriat.e when principles of equity would make the rigid application of a limitation neriod unfair, such as when a state nrisoner faces extraordinary circumstances that prevent him from filing a timely habeas petition and the prisoner has exercised reasonable diii ence in attempting to investigate and bring his claims. Latava v. EvIct, 398 F.3d 271, 275 76 Mere excusable neglect is not sufficient. at 618 19; Jones, 195 E.30 at Id.; (3d Cir. Miller, 2005) 145 F.3d 159. Extraordinary circumstances permitting equitable tolling have been found where: misled; (2) (1) the petitioner has been actively the petitioner has been prevented from asserting his rights in some extraordinary way; (3) the petitioner timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum, 159, or (4) see Jones, the court has misled a party regarding the steps that the party needs to take to preserve a claim, Vaughn, (2005) . 195 F.3d at 398 F.3d 225, 230 (3d Cir.), cert. see Brinson v. denied, 126 S.Ct. Even where extraordinary circumstances exist, 473 however, [i]f the person seeking equitable tolling has not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to file after the The Third Circuit has expressly held that, in non-capital cases, attorney error, miscalculation, inadequate research, or other mistakes are not the extraordinary circumstances necessary to establish equitable tolling. Johnson v. Hendricks, 314 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2002), cert. denied 538 rg ¢ 1022 (2003); Fahy, 240 F. 3d at 244. C) C) Hi H CD C) C C) C) Ft XC) H- C 1 CRC) FtC) H HC) C) CDC) COil) Ft CD ¢ C) FtC)] C) Ci HFt CD C) CO ¢ o C) C) o C) C) CD Ft C) CD H- CD H HCD Ft HCO C) H) C) 0) H 0 0) H HFt H- HC CD U) C CD C) 0) Cl) C) 0 Ft 0 C) CD H H CD C) C) H CD C) H 0 C) HC) C) ¢ C) C) ¢ C) CX) C) CD H C) C C - CD H) Ui C) C) C) C) C) CD C) Ft Ft C) CD Ft Cl) C) C) HC C) 0 C H Ft U) Ft C) H- CO CD C CD C) C Cl) C) C) C) C) -, U) C) H H CD CD C) CD Ft H- CD Cl) C) HCO CO CD HCO C) CD C) 0 Ft C C C) C) 0 Cl) C) C C) CD Ft HFt H0 HCo C) L< l C) CO CD C) H H CD C) CD H CD C) C) CD C CD C) H H CD CD C) CD H- C CD C C) 0 H Ft C) H CD CD CD 0 C C) 0 H- C) C) 0 H CD CD C) Ft CD C) CD CD Cl) C) ¢ C) ¢ C) ¢ (C C) Cx) C) CD H C C CD C) CD H H C) CD I Ft H- C) Cl) C) CD 0 C) H HFt CD CD HU) Cl) CD C) HCo C) Ft 0 Ft C) 0 H C C) H Q CD H Ft C C) C) C) H- C) U- C) C) CD Co C CD C) H) Ft H- C C CD CO C) HCl) U) CD HU) C) CD C) Ft o C C) C) C 0 U) 0 C C Ft H- C HC) 0 Ft Cl) Ft C) CD H C) CD CD H () çt C) 0 C) C) HCO Ft HCD Cl) HCO C) C) CD C 0 0) Cl) C) 0 Ft Cl) CD 0 C Ft H- H- Ft C) ¢ C) C) C) C) - Cx) C) co 0 C H Ft C) CD C) C) C) cx) C) CD C HCD C) CD H Ft C) C) C) CD H C) CD H C C) Ft H- C) C) HH CD C CD C) HU) CO C) CD 0) HC) C) Ft C) HCl) C) CD H C) 0 H CD C) H C) C) C) C) C) ¢ < C C)) H 0 0) 0 C) C C) HC) H- CD C) < Ei Ft H- C Ft CD HH C) Ft C C) C) - C) - Co C) ¢ C) C) C) C) HH C) Ft C C) C) H- 0 H CD C) C) 0 C) H C C HC) CD U) C CD Ft 0) CD CD C) C CD Ft H0 C) H- CD C CD Ft 0 H CD C) C) C) CD HC) CD C C) ¢ C) CD C) C) CD C) C) C) C) - C) C) Ft CD C) CD C C) U) Ft CD C C) CD U) HH C) C C) L< CD H C H- C) H CD 0 H Ft CD Ft Ft H CD C) C) U)) C) C) C) C) C C) CD CD CD CD C) CD C C) CD C) C) C) C 0 C C) CD C CO Ft CD E C) HH C) C CD H H) C C) H- H U) CD H H) C H- C) CD )< Ft H CD C) H Ft C) CD C C) CD X Ft H CD 0 C C C) C) CD Ft CD C) H CD CD H C) C) - C) Ft HCi Co 0 C ¢ < CD C) <) CD H C) CD < C C) C) Ft H- C) C - HH C)

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.