Martinez-Guzman v. Warden FCI Fort Dix

Full title: EDWIN MARTINEZ-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN FCI FORT DIX, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Dec 5, 2024

Civil Action 24-10680 (GC) (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 24-10680 (GC)

12-05-2024

EDWIN MARTINEZ-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN FCI FORT DIX, Respondent.

GEORGETTE CASTNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GEORGETTE CASTNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, Fort Dix MDL, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 2241 (“Section 2241”). (ECF No. 1 (“Petition”).) Petitioner did not submit the five-dollar filing fee for a habeas petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or apply to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

IT IS, therefore, on this 4^th day of December, 2024, ORDERED as follows:

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate this case, without filing the Petition; Petitioner is informed that administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes of the statute of limitations, and that if the case is reopened, it is not subject to the statute j of limitations time bar if it was originally filed timely, see Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275 (3d Cir. 2013) (distinguishing administrative terminations from dismissals); Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80, 84 n.2 (3d Cir. 2013) (describing prisoner mailbox rule generally); Dasilva v. Sheriff's Dep't., 413 Fed.Appx. 498, 502 (3rd Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[The] statute of limitations is met when a [motion] is submitted to the clerk before the statute runs . . ..”); and it is further

ORDERED that if Petitioner wishes to reopen this case, he shall so notify the Court, in a writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court, Clarkson S, Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, N.J. 08608, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order; Petitioner's writing shall include either (i) a complete IFP application or (ii) the five-dollar filing fee; and it is further

ORDERED that upon receipt of a writing from Petitioner stating that he wishes to reopen this case, and either a complete IFP application or payment of the filing fee within the time allotted by this Court, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to reopen this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Order and a blank form DNJ-Pro Se-007-B-(Rev. 09/09) upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.