The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wigenton, District Judge
Petitioner Louis Watley, a prisoner currently confined at East Jersey
State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.*fn1
The respondents are New Jersey State Parole Board Chairman
James Plousis, the Attorney General of New Jersey,
Administrator Donald Mee, and Parole Board Panelists Riccardella and Marenco.
Because it appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to issuance of the writ at this time, the Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Petitioner asserts that he is confined pursuant to convictions, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, for kidnapping, criminal sexual contact, aggravated sexual assault, and terroristic threats.
Petitioner alleges that on July 19, 2010, an Adult Panel of the New Jersey State Parole Board denied him parole. Petitioner states that the decision was unlawful because it failed to recognize material facts and listed aggravating facts which were not supported by the evidence. In this Petition, Petitioner goes into detail about the alleged defects in the Adult Panel decision.
In this Petitioner, dated September 22, 2010, only two months after the challenged decision, Petitioner also acknowledges that he has not exhausted any state remedies with respect to his claims, because exhaustion would be "futile."
6. Petitioner has no other remedy for relief from his unlawful Adult Panel decision other than this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner maintains that attempting to seek exhaustion would be futile where;
State conspiracy precludes an impartial determination; the actions of the Parole Board clearly and unambiguously violated statutory and constitutional rights and the administrative procedures were inadequate to prevent irreparable harm. &. Other than the application for a writ of habeas corpus made attacking the conviction under Case Number @:09-cv-04358-SRC, the petitioner has made no other previous application to any other court or judge. (Petition, ¶¶ 6, 7.)
Petitioner has attached to his Petition a brief detailing his challenges to the Adult Panel decision and his allegation of futility:
... In this petition, the petitioner argues that a multitude of due process procedural statutory violation were by design employed by the Parole Board to deny the petition a fair determination. Of equal concern, the State and State courts assisted the Board in implementing transgressions making any appeal in the State of New Jersey a futile endeavor. (Brief at 1.) Petitioner then describes the procedural history of several previous appeals of the denial of parole, including two instances in which the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the denial of parole, and including one in 2008 in which the Appellate Division vacated ...