Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Barnes

October 30, 2007

STEWART WILSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PETER J. BARNES, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wolfson, District Judge

OPINION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Northern State Prison, seeks to file a Complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on his affidavit of poverty and prison account statement, this Court will grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and direct the Clerk to file the Complaint without prepayment of fees. Having thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's allegations, this Court will dismiss the federal claims asserted in the Complaint, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and close the file.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff challenges the calculation of his sentence and asserts violation of his constitutional rights by Peter J. Barnes, Chairman of the New Jersey State Parole Board, and Alfaro Ortiz, Administrator of East Jersey State Prison. He alleges the following facts, which this Court is required to regard as true for the purposes of this review. Plaintiff asserts that on December 15, 1999, he was arrested on a parole violator warrant. He asserts that the parole revocation hearing was untimely conducted on May 1, 2000, and the parole board revoked his parole. Plaintiff states that on May 5, 2000, and March 2, 2001, the state court imposed two new convictions and sentences, which were ordered to run concurrently to each other and to the parole violation term. Plaintiff maintains that, although he should have been eligible for parole on September 15, 2000, the parole board did not consider his parole eligibility until November 25, 2002. He states that the parole board denied parole and imposed a 32-month future parole eligibility date. Plaintiff asserts that the parole board next considered his parole eligibility on August 1, 2005, denied parole, and imposed a 27-month future eligibility term. Plaintiff complains that

the parole board violated the order of the [sentencing] court to run the sentence concurrent to my PVT [parole violator term], and committed a violation far more serious in literally stopping the progression of my PVT (original sentence). The stoppage extended from November 25th, 2002 to March 1st, 2003, a period of Three months and One week. This violated due process as well as subjecting me to a second term for the same offense.

On January 18th, 2007, I met with the parole board for the third time. I was denied parole and received a Twenty-Three month FET. Here again, the Twenty-Three month FET was added to the August 1st, 2005 FET, which had not yet expired. It should be noted that each of the FET dates that I received were already served prior to my parole hearings, which was due to the untimeliness of each hearing.

Furthermore, the parole board denied me of all my work and commutation credits from March 2nd, 2001 to November 11th, 2005, a period of time that totals Four years and Eight months. There is absolutely no legal justification for this.

The Classification Department at East Jersey State Prison deprived me of all my work and commutation credits, extending from march 2nd, 2001 to November 11th, 2005, which reflects the information regarding this issue made by the parole board. I had no success in my efforts to resolve this issue through the parties named in the complaint.

(Compl, attachment, Statement of Claims, ¶¶ 4-7.)

As relief for violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff

request[s] the court [to] order[] the parties in this complaint to readjust [his] records according to the courts[']s findings of [his] claims. [He] request[s] an immediate release[] based on [his] being illegally confined since the stoppage and re-starting of [his] sentence. [He] request[s] that the time [he] ha[s] served illegally will be deducted from the time remaining of [his] original sentence - if there is any remaining. [He] want[s] to be monetarily compensated for damages.

(Compl. ¶ 7, Relief.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996), requires the Court, prior to docketing or as soon as practicable after docketing, to review a complaint in a civil action in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis or a prisoner seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. The PLRA requires the Court to sua sponte dismiss any claim if the Court determines that it is frivolous, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.