DOUGLAS v. ORTIZ

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ______________________________ : PAUL RYAN DOUGLAS, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 20-3284 (NLH) : v. : OPINION : : DAVID E. ORTIZ, : : Respondent. : ______________________________:

APPEARANCE:

Paul Ryan Douglas 56919-004 FCI Fort Dix Inmate Mail/Parcels EAST: P.O. BOX 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640 Petitioner Pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge Petitioner Paul Ryan Douglas seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1 (petition). 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 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. Petitioner submitted a statement that the filing fee was forthcoming, but the Clerk has not received the filing fee. He must either submit the $5 filing fee or a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis for his habeas petition to be

considered For the reason set forth above, the Clerk of Court will be ordered to administratively terminate this Petition without prejudice.1 The Clerk will be instructed to reopen this matter

1 Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is re- opened 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 once Petitioner submits either the filing fee or a complete in forma pauperis application. An appropriate Order will be entered.

Dated: April 29, 2020 s/ Noel L. Hillman At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

and explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over, and can re-open, administratively closed cases).