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.

Patrick Pantusco v. Mr. Lagana

December 16, 2010

PATRICK PANTUSCO, PETITIONER,
v.
MR. LAGANA, ADMINISTRATOR, RESPONDENT.



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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Petitioner Patrick Pantusco, a prisoner currently confined at Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, has submitted (1) a "Notice of Petition" for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,*fn1 (2) a "Notice of Motion" to proceed as an indigent,*fn2 for the assignment of counsel, and for an extension of time to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a merits brief, and (3) a "Certification" in support of his motion. The respondent is Administrator Mr. Lagana.

I. BACKGROUND

The "Notice of Petition" reads as follows, in its entirety:

Please take notice that: I, Patrick Pantusco, an inmate in the custody of the State of New Jersey am petitioning the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey for a writ of Habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254; attacking my criminal conviction.

Pursuant to United States Federal Court Rules, petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies and appeals to the New Jersey State Supreme Court, which has just denied petitioner's final petition for Certification to have his case reviewed.

Petitioner intends to raise a number of United States Constitutional issues; Constitutional protections that the petitioner believes he was denied. (Notice of Petition.)

Petitioner does not state the criminal judgment under attack. He does not state the nature of the constitutional issues he intends to raise. He does not detail the nature or dates of the proceedings in state court.

II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in relevant part as follows:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970). Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See ...


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.