HOFFMAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al, No. 2:2012cv06785 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/12/13. (jd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY WILLIAM HOFFMAN, Civil Action No. 12-6785 Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, : (JLL) OPINION et al. Respondents. APPEARANCES: Petitioner se William Hoffman South Woods State Prison 215 Burlington Road South Bridgeton, Nj 08302 LINARES, District Judge Petitioner William Hoffman, a prisoner currently confined at South Woods State Prison at Bridgeton, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22541 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant Section 2254 provides in relevant part: (a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The respondents are the State of New Jersey and the Attorney General of New Jersey. Based on his affidavit of indigence, the Court will grant Petitioner s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because it appears to be second or successive, the Court will dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. I. § 2244(b). BACKGROUND Petitioner asserts that he was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, of Felony Murder and Second-Degree Burglary, and that he was sentenced on March 2 25, 1994, to a 30 year term of imprisonment. Petitioner asserts that he withdrew his direct appeal in order to proceed to a state petition for post conviction relief ( PCR ) . Petitioner asserts that the PCR court determined that his petition was procedurally barred and that the denial of relief was upheld on appeal. State v. Hoffman, 178 N.J. On or about July 27, 250 2004, (2003) (denial of certification) Petitioner filed his first federal petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Hoffman v. (SDW) In that petition, . State of New Jery, Civil No. 04 3640 Petitioner asserted the following 2 Petitioner identifies the Indictment as Number 93 0100088 I. The first federal petition for writ of habeas corpus references the same Indictment Number 93 01 00088 I. 2 grounds for relief: voluntary, (2) (1) his guilty plea was not knowing and his conviction was obtained by the use of a coerced confession, (3) exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor improperly withheld and assistance of counsel. (4) he was denied the effective On January 24, 2008, the first federal petition as untimely and, as meritless. 57.) See Civil No. On August 14, 2008, 04-3640 this Court denied in the alternative, (Docket Entries Nos. the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, first federal petition was untimely. Jersey, No. 08-2331 (3d Cir.). No. 09 5230 agreeing that the Hoffman v. On October 5, Supreme Court denied certiorari. Jery, 42, 2009, Hoffman v. State of New the U.S. State of New (U.S.). Although the Petition is not entirely clear, it appears that Petitioner thereafter filed further state petitions for post conviction relief that were denied. N.J. 198 (2012) See State v. (denial of certification) Hoffman, 212 (also attached as an Exhibit to the Petition) Petitioner has returned to this Court with a new Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. challenging the same conviction. following grounds for relief: Here, (1) § 2254, Petitioner asserts the the state court erred in determining that his first state petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred, (2) the state charged and sentenced 3 Petitioner beyond the presumptive guidelines for burglary, (3) the state erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing based on the claim that the government withheld exculpatory evidence that two witness statements placed him in another room while the murder was being committed, relief, (4) on appeal of the denial of PCR the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, violated Petitioner s due process and equal protection rights when it granted the government s third motion for extension of time, leading to the denial of Petitioner s judgment of default. For the reasons set forth below, this Petition will be dismissed without prejudice as a second or successive petition that Petitioner has not obtained authorization from the Court of Appeals to file. 4 II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in relevant part as follows: 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. Because this Petition is second or successive there is no need to give the notice otherwise required by Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000). 4 Thus, Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). See also Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts ( If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition ... (emphasis added)) A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. U.S. 97, (1972) . 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, Estelle v. 404 U.S. 519, Gamble, 520-21 A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. Royce v. 429 Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, v. Attorney General, Nevertheless, 118 (3d Cir. 878 F.2d 714, 722 1998); (3d Cir. .S also Lewis 1989). a federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996). also 28 U.S.C. III. Lonchar v. § 2243, Thomas, 2254, 2255. ANALYSIS Federal law imposes strict limitations on a United States District Court s consideration of second or successive habeas 5 petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). relevant part, That statute states, in as follows: (b) (1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. (2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme court, that was previously unavailable; or (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l)-(2). United States code Title 28, Section 2244 (b) (3) (A), provides that [b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. The term second or successive is not defined in the statute, but it is well settled that the phrase does not simply refe[rj in time. to all § 2254 applications filed second or successively Panetti v. Ouarterman, 6 551 U.S. 930, 944 (2007) . The term has been the subject of substantial recent discussion in Supreme Court decisions. .jcreating an exception for a second application raising a claim that would have been unripe had the petitioner presented it in his first application); Martinez Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) Stewart v. (treating a second application as part of a first application where it was premised on a newly ripened claim that had been dismissed from the first application as premature); Slack v. McDaniel, (declining to apply the bar of § 2244(b) 529 U.S. 473 (2000) to a second application where the first application was dismissed for lack of exhaustion) Courts generally are in agreement, however, that the dismissal of a first federal petition as untimely constitutes an adjudication on the merits, second or successive. 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. rendering any later-filed petition See, 2009) e.g., McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d ( We therefore hold that dismissal of a section 2254 habeas petition for failure to comply with the statute of limitations renders subsequent petitions second or successive for purposes of the AEDPA... in Stokes v. cert. No. denied, 11-0733, Here, Gehr, 399 Fed.Appx. 131 S.Ct. 1698 2011 WL 5142859, 697, . ) (cited with approval 699 n.2 (2011)); Terry v. at *3 (3d Cir. 2010), Bartkowski, (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2011). as Petitioner s first federal petition was denied as untimely, this Petition is second or successive. 7 Civil If a second or successive petition is filed in the district court without an order from the appropriate court of appeals, the district court may dismiss for want of jurisdiction or shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action other such court in which the action at the time it was filed. v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, ... 28 U.S.C. 139 to any could have been brought § 1631. (3d Cir. ... 2002) See also Robinson ( When a second or successive habeas petition is erroneously filed in a district court without the permission of a court of appeals, the district court s only option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Here, § 1631. ) Petitioner does not assert that he has received permission to file this second or successive Petition from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Courts A review of the U.S. Public Access to Court Electronic Records ( PACER ) system does not reflect that Petitioner has sought or obtained leave from the Court of Appeals to file this Petition. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this unauthorized second or successive Petition. This Court finds that it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this action to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, as Petitioner has failed to allege facts bringing any of the claims within the grounds detailed in § 2244(b) for permitted second or successive claims. 8 Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition, without prejudice to Petitioner applying to the Court of Appeals for authorization to file a second or successive petition. IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 Cc) (2). A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 Miller El v. (2003) When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 9 (2000). Here, jurists of reason would not disagree with this Court s procedural ruling. Therefore, no certificate of appealability will issue. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice as second or successive. No certificate of appealability will issue. An appropriate order follows. Dated / - L. Linares JJited States District Judge /JO5, 10
]]>
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.
