CLARK v. United States

D. New Jersey

CLARK v. United States

DecidedApril 19, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-17214

StatusUnknown

This text of CLARK v. United States (CLARK v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CLARK v. United States, (D.N.J. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ___________________________________ KENT LEROY CLARK, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 19-20520 (MCA) : v. : : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : MEMORANDUM & ORDER : Respondent. : ____________________________________:

Petitioner, Kent Leroy Clark (“Petitioner” or “Clark”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner is challenging his conviction and sentence entered by this Court in Crim. No. 90-12- 02. In accordance with Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 4(b), this Court must screen the § 2255 motion to determine whether dismissal without an answer is warranted. In this case, Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is duplicative as he has another ongoing action in this Court filed prior to this action that is challenging the same conviction. Indeed, Petitioner is proceeding through counsel in Civ. No. 19-17214 challenging the same conviction, Crim. No. 90-12-02. In that case, as in this case, Petitioner argues his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) cannot stand. Thus, this case is summarily dismissed as duplicative. It is worth noting in this action, Civ. No. 19-20520, Petitioner also includes a claim that new scientific evidence renders the factual basis for the original jury verdict unreliable. Should Petitioner wish to raise this claim in his previously filed action, counsel must do so on his behalf in that action as this Court does not permit “hybrid” representation.1 See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 578 (3d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, IT IS on this 19th day of April, 2021, ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 is summarily dismissed as it is duplicative of Petitioner’s ongoing litigation in Civ. No. 19-17214; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk shall file this memorandum and order also in Civ. No. 19-17214; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk shall serve this memorandum and order on Petitioner by regular U.S. mail; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk shall mark this case as closed.

DATED: 4/19/21 s/Madeline Cox Arleo HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO United States District Judge

1 As a courtesy to Petitioner’s counsel in 19-17214, this Court shall order the Clerk to file this memorandum and order in that case as well.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ___________________________________ KENT LEROY CLARK, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 19-20520 (MCA) : v. : : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : MEMORANDUM & ORDER : Respondent. : ____________________________________:

Petitioner, Kent Leroy Clark (“Petitioner” or “Clark”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner is challenging his conviction and sentence entered by this Court in Crim. No. 90-12- 02. In accordance with Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 4(b), this Court must screen the § 2255 motion to determine whether dismissal without an answer is warranted. In this case, Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is duplicative as he has another ongoing action in this Court filed prior to this action that is challenging the same conviction. Indeed, Petitioner is proceeding through counsel in Civ. No. 19-17214 challenging the same conviction, Crim. No. 90-12-02. In that case, as in this case, Petitioner argues his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) cannot stand. Thus, this case is summarily dismissed as duplicative. It is worth noting in this action, Civ. No. 19-20520, Petitioner also includes a claim that new scientific evidence renders the factual basis for the original jury verdict unreliable. Should Petitioner wish to raise this claim in his previously filed action, counsel must do so on his behalf in that action as this Court does not permit “hybrid” representation.1 See, e.g., United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 578 (3d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, IT IS on this 19th day of April, 2021, ORDERED Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 is summarily dismissed as it is duplicative of Petitioner’s ongoing litigation in Civ. No. 19-17214; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk shall file this memorandum and order also in Civ. No. 19-17214; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk shall serve this memorandum and order on Petitioner by regular U.S. mail; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk shall mark this case as closed.

DATED: 4/19/21 s/Madeline Cox Arleo HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO United States District Judge

1 As a courtesy to Petitioner’s counsel in 19-17214, this Court shall order the Clerk to file this memorandum and order in that case as well.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CLARK v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-united-states-njd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack