MARINO v. ORTIZ ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ______________________________ : VINCENT MICHAEL MARINO, : : Petitioner, : Civ. No. 19-14168 (NLH) : v. : OPINION : WARDEN ORTIZ, : : Respondent. : ______________________________: APPEARANCE: Vincent Michael Marino, No. 14431-038 FCI Fort Dix P.O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640 Petitioner Pro se HILLMAN, District Judge Petitioner Vincent Michael Marino, a prisoner presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix in Fort Dix, New Jersey, seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prepayment of fees or security. See ECF No. 1 (petition). Filing Fee 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 did not prepay the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas petition as required by Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), nor did Petitioner submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner must either prepay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Conclusion For the reason set forth above, the Clerk of Court will be ordered to administratively terminate this action without prejudice.1 Petitioner will be granted leave to re-open within 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 thirty (30) days, by paying the filing fee of $5.00, or submitted a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. An appropriate Order will be entered. Dated: July 23, 2019 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).