Bell v. Ortiz, No. 1:2019cv21262 - Document 6 (D.N.J. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/13/2019. (rss, n.m.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bell v. Ortiz Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ______________________________ : ROY RICARDO BELL, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 19-21262 (NLH) : v. : OPINION : : DAVID ORTIZ, : : Respondent. : ______________________________: APPEARANCE: Roy Ricardo Bell, No. 78931-083 FCI Fort Dix Inmate Mail/Parcels East: P.O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640 Petitioner Pro se HILLMAN, District Judge Petitioner Roy Ricardo Bell seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1 (petition). Filing Fee The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is $5.00. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is required to be paid at the time the petition is presented for filing. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 81.2(b), whenever a prisoner submits a petition for writ of habeas corpus and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, that petitioner must submit (a) an affidavit setting forth information which establishes that the Dockets.Justia.com petitioner is unable to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings, and (b) a certification signed by an authorized officer of the institution certifying (1) the amount presently on deposit in the prisoner’s prison account and, (2) the greatest amount on deposit in the prisoner’s institutional account during the six-month period prior to the date of the certification. If the institutional account of the petitioner exceeds $200, the petitioner shall not be considered eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. L. Civ. R. 81.2(c). Here, Petitioner has not included a certified account statement with his application. ECF No. 5. Petitioner must either submit the $5 filing fee or a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for his habeas petition to be considered. Conclusion For the reason set forth above, the Clerk of Court will be ordered to administratively terminate this Petition without prejudice. 1 Petitioner will be granted leave to apply to re-open 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 within thirty (30) days, by paying the filing fee of $5.00 or submitted a complete in forma pauperis application. An appropriate Order will be entered. Dated: December 13, 2019 At Camden, New Jersey s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. 3
]]>
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.
