1. On October 10, 2007, Petitioner RALPH H. RASLER, II (hereinafter "Petitioner"), currently confined at New Jersey State Prison, Trenton, New Jersey, filed a pro se petition seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (hereinafter "Petition") and submitted due application to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. This Court, however, prior to examining Petitioner's application on the merits, shall determine whether Petitioner properly invoked this Court's jurisdiction, complied with applicable Habeas Rules and duly exhausted state court remedies with respect to these challenges. See Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 402-03 (3d Cir. 2004) (stating that a court may examine an application for a writ of habeas corpus sua sponte); Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2001); Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000); Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328-29 (5th Cir. 1999)).
3. The Petition alleges the following four Grounds for relief (hereinafter, collectively, "Grounds A-D") and provides the Court with the following factual information:
A. Ground One: Forgery Has Caused [Petitioner] a "grave injustice." Angie Mercurio - RHIT of Raritan Bay Medical Center did supply a false statement used against [Petitioner] at trial!
[A]nd a CAT scan will prove that! Pet. ¶ 12(A).
B. Ground Two: Perjury Has Caused [Petitioner] a "grave injustice." Officers Gumprecht and Sztukowski lied at trial about taking [Petitioner] to [a] hospital. [And] a CAT scan will prove that too!
C. Ground Three: The officerss lied at trial when they said no one entered the alleged crime sce[ne] . . . 19 officers entered before the warrant was signed.
D. Ground One: Criminal Neglect - Caused [Petitioner] a "grave injustice." The cops took "no" fingerprints at the alleged crime scene.
4. In addition to the Petition, Petitioner's application includes a "Supplemental Brief," see Pet. at 17-19, which appears to be a three-page excerpt from the brief submitted by the attorney who was preparing Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner partially obliterated the language of the excerpt, plus added non-systemic liberal comments to the non-obliterated statements made in the excerpt. See id. These comments consist of arrows connecting certain statements made in the excerpt to Petitioner's comments entered on the margins and circled. See id. For instance, one of non-obliterated parts of the excerpt alleges that Petitioner's trial counsel provided Petitioner with ineffective assistance by failing, inter alia, "to arrange for [Petitioner's] CAT scan so that [Petitioner] could prove that his injuries could not possibly been caused by a bottle thrown by [an undisclosed entity]." Id. at 17. Drawing an arrow to this language, Petitioner connected the arrow to a circle on the margin, within which he entered a comment reading, "would prove forgery of med[ical] doc[tor] used against [Petitioner] at trial." Id. 17. The arrow appears to suggest that Petitioner somehow relates the aforesaid excerpted language to his Ground One reading "Forgery Has Caused [Petitioner] a 'grave injustice.' Angie Mercurio - RHIT of Raritan Bay Medical Center did supply a false statement used against [Petitioner at trial, a]nd a CAT scan will prove that!" Id. ¶ 12(A). However, the above-described markings provide no additional factual nor the legal basis for Petitioner's Grounds A-D. See generally, Pet.
5. "Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements." McFarland v. Scott, ...