KARABATAK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA <font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font>

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided November 28, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-06702·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IBRAHIM KARABATAK, : : Civ. No. 22-6702 (RBK) Petitioner, : : v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Respondent. : :

Pro se Petitioner is a federal prisoner. He is proceeding with a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Local Civil Rule 81.2 provides: Unless prepared by counsel, . . . motions under 28 U.S.C. §2255 shall be in writing (legibly handwritten in ink or typewritten), signed by the petitioner or movant, on forms supplied by the Clerk.

L. Civ. R. 81.2(a). Petitioner did not use the § 2255 form supplied by the Clerk of this Court for section 2255 motions, i.e., AO243 (modified): DNJ-Habeas-004 (Rev. 01-2014). Thus, this matter will be administratively terminated. Therefore, IT IS on this 28th day of November, 2022, ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this case; 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 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 F. App’x 498, 502 (3rd Cir. 2011) (“[The] statute of limitations is met when a [motion] is submitted to the clerk before the statute runs ….”); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk's service of the blank section 2255 form shall not be construed as this Court’s finding that the § 2255 motion is or is not timely, or that Petitioner's claims are or

are not procedurally defaulted; 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, Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse, 4th & Cooper Streets, Camden, NJ 08101, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this memorandum and order; Petitioner’s writing shall include a complete, signed § 2255 motion on the appropriate form supplied by the Clerk; and it is further ORDERED that upon receipt of a writing from Petitioner stating that he wishes to reopen this case, and a complete, signed § 2255 motion supplied by the Clerk, the Clerk will be directed to reopen this case; and it is finally ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this memorandum and order and a blank

section 2255 form - AO243 (modified): DNJ-Habeas-004 (Rev. 01-2014) on Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

s/ Robert B. Kugler ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge

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

KARABATAK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA <font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font>, (D.N.J. 2022).

KARABATAK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA <font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> (KARABATAK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA <font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font>) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DaSilva v. Sheriff's Department
413 F. App'x 498 (Third Circuit, 2011)
Robert Jenkins v. Superintendent Laurel Highland
705 F.3d 80 (Third Circuit, 2013)
Lisa Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident Insur
731 F.3d 265 (Third Circuit, 2013)