Kearney v. Unknown Warden, No. 2:2013cv03243 - Document 12 (D.N.J. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 2/28/14. (gmd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LAQUAN LAMONT KEARNEY, 13 3243 Civil Action No. (CCC) Petitioner, OPINION : v. UNKNOWN WARDEN, Respondent. APPEARANCES: LAQUAN LAMONT KEARNEY, Petitioner pro se #830556/720573C Northern State Prison 168 Krontage Road, P.O. Box 2300 Newark, New Jersey 07114 CECCHI, District Judge Petitioner state convicted Lamont prisoner presently State Prison in Newark, a writ of challenging habeas his New New Jersey, Jersey state For stare court remedies. confined the at the a Northern submitted a petition for has pursuant corpus ( Petitioner ), Kearney LaQuan 28 to court US.C. judgment reasons stated of conviction herein, the BACKGROUND I. On United the in entered on May Honorable the 2013, 2, District States By (Docket # 1.) Court for the Western District of Missouri. Order letter a submitted Petitioner relief habeas for application 2013, 23, April Fenner, A, Gary U.S.D.J., construed Petitioner s application as a petition for a § 2254, writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. the both Clerk relief habeas pauperis. habeas provide to (Dkt. relief on actions on May 13, Petitioner under 2254 with the necessary forms and for proceeding in court court approved 2013. application that same date. (Dkt. form for for forma Petitioner submitted his petition 41 2.) the § and ordered for 2254 § He also submitted an IFP 41 3.) (Dkt. 41 4.) By Order entered on May 15, 2013, this case was transferred from the Western District of Missouri to this District Court for all further proceedings. On May 2013, 29, this Court administratively terminated the action because Petitioner s IFP application was deficient. The Order allowed Petitioner to have his case re-opened upon submission of a complete IFP application or the requisite $5.00 filing fee. (Dkt. #7.) a complete IFP application on June 12, he qualifies for indigent status. 2013, and it appears that (Dkt. 41 8.) Court will direct the Clerk of the Court 2 Petitioner filed Accordingly, the to re-open the case, and the Court wili grant auplication to proceed as Petitioner s an indigent in this matter. convicted by a jury trial, Court of charges Law Jersey, New of assault (Dkt. and burglary. # at Petition 3, various on County, Union Division, in the Superior 2013, on February 15, was he that states Petitioner petition, habeas his In ¶91 1- Petitioner also alleges that he was awaiting his sentencing 6.) (Id., date at the time he filed this habeas petition. ¶ 3,) Petitioner states that he filed an appeal with the Superior of New awaiting the result. has filed before Attorney Ethics the 9.) both his New Jersey s Judicial on and the Advisory Committee (Id., ¶91 9g, he and the Office of Conduct, asserting that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. ethics complaints also are pending. still that defender public of Court Supreme is he alleges further He ¶ against complaints judge trial (Id., which to Division, Appellate Jersey, Court These 11.) The habeas petition appears to assert claims of ineffective assistance and of failure his of counsel, to have rights and denial of his right to a prearraignment hearing the criminal charges a speedy trial, giving him notice aaainsr him. (Id., I II. A prisoner state federal courts the of I or Rose v. F.3d 187, 455 Lundy, 190 (3d 509, U.S. 2009) Cir. the first constitutional claims, afforded and federalism. (3d Cir. 2012); F.3d 9504 Williams, see 581 Brooks, be must upon federal of comity 516 18; 204, 209 Leyva F.3d 675 at 2007) Cir. (3d 366 U.S. 455 Rose, also 357, DiGuglielmo, v.. 2254(b) (1); state a of § the policies furtherance of Roman See of v. pass to opportunity in U.S.C. courts The . absence circumstances exist Heleva (1982); 515 in an is . . 28 ineffective, such process render . in available remedies there unless available State corrective process[ that the corpus habeas of writ I exhaust[ State, the a for applying first court must DISCUSSION v. also Exhaustion . has the practical effect of permitting development of a complete factual their record 346, state See Rose, review. 489 U.S. in 349 Further, to petitioner must to court, aid the 519; Castille U.S. at the 455 courts federal exhaustion v. Peoples, (1989) satisfy iairly present all of his requirement, a to the federal claims state s highest court before proceeding in federal court. v. § 680 Coleman, 2254(c) te ( An remedies in F.3d 311, 317 applicant shall available in the (3d Cir. not be courts 4 2012); deemed of the R015fl see also 28 U.S.C. to have State, exhausted within the the to State raise, by See Toulson v. facts establishing exhaustion. 987 this Petitioner 13, 987 Beyer, F.2d (3d Cir. 1993). In 984, all proving of burden the bears law of question the procedure, available any petitioner The presented ). if he has the right under the section, meaning of this 2013, submitted shows petition the case, that, for habeas application his ¶ 2.) (Id., on May which rendered a verdict on He was found guilty by jury trial, 2013. relief (Petition at ¶ 4.) Petitioner was not yet sentenced. February 15, time the at Petitioner was sentenced only recently, on June 14, 2013. the Moreover, appeal and before While allegedly filed sentence, it admits it is is a this that not appeal from was is still that his the an sentenced, he appeal entirely clear direct filed Petitioner that Division before the Appellate Petitioner decision. shows petition pending appeal conviction he and is plainly evident that state court remedies have not yet been exhausted on the issues Petitioner seeks to raise in this federal habeas application. In addition, the ethics violations Petitioner filed against both his public defender and the trial judge before the Supreme Court of New Jersey, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct and the Office of Attorney Ethics, do not constitute proper exhaustion 5 under § 2254 (b) (1) (A), these because his alleged or conviction ethics to complaints ethics these Moreover, sentence. challenges not are violations are still pending according to Petitioner. because Therefore, This Rule only if a of constitutional reaching that 48.4 473, the in its (2000 district case, a district Where . court reasonable court petitioner is of should be Slack find would whether the v. McDaniel, court was 529 and of the either that the or that the to dispose could not dismissing conclude the petition allowed to proceed further. 6 U.S. present it invoke it a valid claim of the is to the claim, bar correct in (2) grounds procedural reason the of 2253(c) (2). a plain procedural jurist erred and ruling. procedural § constitutional jurists right; denial of a constitutional oorrect on whether the petition states (1) debatable: petition Appellate showing U.S.C. 28 right. of appealability of substantial a underlying the demonstrate prisoner must certificate a made habeas a denies court without has petitioner the issue Court may The 22.2. Local Circuit Third See issue. should certificate a whether determine must next Court appealability a habeas CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY III. When federal this this matter must be dismissed without prejudice. petition, denial his exhausted fully remedies before proceeding with court state not has Petitioner Id. For the discussed reasons to dismissal § 2254 prejudice for above, without this to failure court remedies as required under 28 U.S.C. subject is habeas petition state exhaust The § 2254(b) (1) (A). Court also is persuaded that reasonable jurists would not debate Consequently, the correctness of this conclusion. a certificate of appealability will not be issued. CONCLUSION V. For habeas the above petition exhaustion of reasons, must state be court February , Court dismissed remedies, appealability will not issue. Date: this finds without and that prejudice that a § 2254 for non- the certificate An appropriate Order follows. 2014 CLAIRE C. CECCHI United State District Judge 7 of
]]>
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.
