HENDERSON v. SMITH et al, No. 1:2021cv08967 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/13/2021. (pr,n.m)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HENDERSON v. SMITH et al Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ______________________________ : BRIAN HENDERSON, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 21-8967 (NLH) : v. : OPINION : : : THOMAS SMITH, et al., : : Respondents. : ______________________________: APPEARANCE: Brian Henderson 20-02775 M.C.C.F 60 Eagleville Road Eagleville, PA 19403 Petitioner Pro se HILLMAN, District Judge Petitioner Brian Henderson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. 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 Dockets.Justia.com affidavit setting forth information which establishes that the 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 failed to either include the $5 filing fee or a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 within thirty (30) days, by paying the filing fee of $5.00 or 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 submitted a complete in forma pauperis application. An appropriate Order will be entered. Dated: April 13, 2021 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.
