HARRITY v. JOHNSON et al, No. 1:2018cv13445 - Document 3 (D.N.J. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/28/2018. (rss, n.m.)

Download PDF
HARRITY v. JOHNSON et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ___________________________________ : RAHEEM HARRITY, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 18-13445(NLH) : v. : OPINION : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE : OF NEW JERSEY, et al., : : Respondents. : ___________________________________: APPEARANCE: Raheem Harrity, No. 460023-C New Jersey State Prison P.O. Box 861 Trenton, NJ 08625 Petitioner Pro Se HILLMAN, District Judge Petitioner Raheem Harrity, a prisoner presently incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, seeks to bring this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1 (Petition). Required Form Local Civil Rule 81.2 provides: Unless 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 use the required habeas form supplied by the Clerk for § 2254 petitions, i.e., AO 241 Dockets.Justia.com (modified):DNJ-Habeas-008(Rev.01-2014). See ECF No. 1. As a result, the Court will administratively terminate this matter and require Petitioner to submit his Petition on the correct form. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will be ordered to administratively terminate this action, without filing the Petition or assessing a filing fee. 1 Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open within thirty (30) days so long as he complies with the requirement to submit his petition on the required form. An appropriate Order follows. Dated: September 28, 2018 At Camden, New Jersey s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. 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). 2

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.