ALLAH v. RIORDAN et al, No. 2:2011cv07151 - Document 9 (D.N.J. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 2/17/12. (sr, )

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ALLAH, JUSTICE I. Civil Action No. 11-7151 (CCC) Petitioner, OPINION : V. BRIAN RIORDAN, Jail Administrator, et al., Respondents. APPEARANCES: se Petitioner Justice I. Allah Union County Jail 15 Elizabethtown Plaza Elizabeth, NJ 07202 CECCHI, District Judge Petitioner Justice I, Allah, New Jersey at the time he filed this County Jail in Elizabeth, Petition, a prisoner confined at Union has submitted a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks to challenge his Section 2241 provides in relevant part: (a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. (c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a (3) He is in custody in violation prisoner unless-of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United . States . . . . . K) H cv CD IL cn cv P1 cv CD to H- C Cl) ¢ i-i HI Ca to CD 0 cv Cl) M CD H 0 HO HO 0 IL CD * to -3 I- cv i-v. P1 to to P1 H cv P1 b cv CD H CD H X U to H 0 H- 13 H- HPh 13 CD H CD cv H to IL CD P1 t3 CD 0 H cv 0 P1 0 P1 H 0 ti cv 0 H- cv H- to CD cv CD H cv b Hto to I-h 0 cv H P1 b cv cv 0 0 C H H- K) H j K) 0 H- cv CD H- P1 to to H 0 to H to to s CD IL cv 13 Hto P1 ti P1 to tt CD K) 0 H H 01 to P1 13 CD cv ti P1 cv n 0 C H cv CD CD IL cv HHi ti 0 cv H < 0 ti C4 P1 tS C P1 H CD 0 CD cv ¢ to 0 C H- P1 H 0 11 0 b H- CD X cv H P1 IL Hcv I-li 0 cv P1 H H P1 b CD to CD IL H H P1 0 C to H- < P1 H P1 ti IL 0 H- cv H P1 IL Hcv H < CD H to CD C, Z CD E H- t3 CD H CD cv c) 0 ti P1 to ç 0 ti CD H to CD CD cv * H Hcv 0 H H-. 0 13 H- cv H- to CD cv H- to CD IL cv H-. HH H < 0 H P1 ti CD 0 C to 5 H- to CD cv ¢ to 0 0 C H cv to cv P1 cv CD ts cv 13 CD H- 0 ti H- cv H P1 IL Hcv CD CD 1 to CD IL cv ti CD H H 0 b CD H 0 b P1 I- - cv H- to CD cv ¢ H H 4 C 0 I-hP1 P1 b IL 0 0 b cv CD to C , 0 0 b P1 0 CD P1 to 0 ft H C H IL H-CD 13 13 to to CD P1 H cv H 13 CD CD to D CD H IL P1 0 P1 ti 0 IL to to H 0 C CD ti I- - < P1 H IL CD cv b CD tot H H CD 0 -s0 CD C toIL IL HCD C cv 0 H CD m cv H 0 0 P1 IL CD to b I-h CD CD CD H IL n cv b 0 1 to P1 P1 0 P1 9 P1 H CD >C cv H P1 IL Hcv CD IL cv 0 cv 13 CD 0 cv CD IL to CD H CD P1 H H to * P1 ti CD CD to CD to cv ti P1 cv H H 0 b CD H P1 H- cv - to CD cv 0 11 -< 3 0 0 P1 > cv H- CD CD ?c to IL $ 0 cv H * 0 C a P1 P1 0 P1 H OH 13 H CD H Z 0 < CD cv b H 0 C tr 0 H P1 Hi cv CD H CD P1 to CD IL H CD to * P1 ti CD * ti CD M 0 H H 0 B 0 0 cv 0 0 CD H i-v. HH Ci P1 < cv 0 0 to CD )4 to W H- P1 H H P1 ti cv P1 i D H b CD cv IL 00 H :i ta H Mb CD U HiM ( 3 0 U) cv P1 cv CD cv b CD IL cv b P1 cv H to cv 0 H- 0 CD CD )< cv H P1 IL Hcv C cv 13 CD IL P1 cv H ti CD ti CD cv ti to * P1 IL P1 M 0 H U H HH > to H 0 i cv E P1 H H P1 b H H to * P1 CD cv 13 P1 cv to to CD CD P1 CD ¢ ¾0 0 K) 0 M K) CD 4 C 0 tI P1 H H CD to cv b H Co 0 H I-h E P1 H H P1 b cv P1 C CD IL to to H- B P1 P1 H H-. 0 cv P1 cv CD CD cv ti CD P1 cv cv to P1 to to CD H cv 0 tS CD H H- cv H- to CD cv I f>4 H ¢ H Pt. 0 cv P1 cv CD Cl) cv ti CD P1 CD H to CD Ci CD E Z 0 0) cv P1 cv CD H- C < CD H P1 to H 0 to CD 0 C cv 0 H D 13 13 to cv P1 cv H- to to P1 ti a zi H0 P1 b W H to cv H P1 cv 0 H - ti H- B D IL cvP1 H b CD CD H CD to to 0 11 IL CD 13 cv to -3 b CD P1 0 P1 B P1 H ti H- ti to H IL CD 0 tJ P1 H tO CD to P1 0 CD Mi 0 b cv 0 H- CD 4 ct H P1 IL Hcv 4, A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto. A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than Estelle v. more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. U.S. 97, 106 (1976) ; Kerner, Haines v. 404 U.S. 519, Gamble, 429 (1972) 520 A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. (3d Cir. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 v. 414 F.2d 552, Brierley, U.S. 912 (1970) . 555 (3d Cir. Lewis v. Attorney 1998); (3d Cir. See Royce 1989) ; 1969), United States v. cert. denied, 399 a federal district court can Nevertheless, dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Lonchar v. F.2d 37, 45 Thomas, 517 U.S. , cert. § 2243, (1996); denied, Siers v. 490 U.S. Ryan, 1025 773 (1989) 2255. (3d Cir. See also 28 U.S.C. 320 314, 1985) III. ANALYSTS The duty of a state to extradite an individual to another state is rooted in the Extradition Clause of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered 3 up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, ci. § 2, 2. Congress implemented this non-self-executing constitutional duty with the enactment of the Extradition Act. Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered If no such agent to such agent when he shall appear. thirty days from the time of the arrest, appears within the prisoner may be discharged. 18 U.S.C. N.J.S.A. § 3182. See also Uniform Criminal Extradition Law, § 2A:160-9, et seq. Interstate extradition is intended to be a summary and Michigan v. mandatory executive proceeding. 282, 288 (1978) . Doran, 439 U.S. The purposes of the Extradition Clause are to enable each state to bring offenders to trial as swiftly as possible in the state where the alleged offense was committed, and to preclude any state from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives from justice of another state. 4 at 287, a federal right It is well established that individuals have for writ of habeas to challenge their extradition by petition corpus. See, g., Roberts v. Reilly, however, scope of such habeas review, 116 U.S. 80 The (1850). is narrow. a court Once the governor has granted extradition, as corpus can do no more considering release on habe ments on than decide (a) whether the extradition docu the petitioner their face are in order; (b ) whether anding state; has been charged with a crime in the dem n named in the (c) whether the petitioner is the perso whether the petitioner request for extradition; and (d) These are historic facts readily is a fugitive. verifiable. 439 U.S. Doran, Moreover, at 289. demanding [o]nce the fugitive is returned to the mes moot: the right to challenge extradition beco state, the and so, the asylum state, fugitive is no longer being detained by is no longer at the legality of his or her detention there issue. Barton v. Norrod, Here, state. 106 F.3d 1289, 1298 (6th Cir. Petitioner has been returned to Alabama, Accordingly, 1997) the demanding this Petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention in New Jersey, has become moot and will be dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, dismissed as moot, the Petition will be An appropriate order follows. CL- (2 Claire C. Cecchi United States District Judge Dated: February 17, 2012 5

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.