The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thompson, District Judge
(NO APPEARANCE MADE ON DOCKET)
Petitioner, Pedro Juan Concepcion, a prisoner confined at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent is the State of New Jersey.
Petitioner has filed numerous motions, which remain pending in this case, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Respondent filed a letter in opposition to the motions, and asserts that the petition is time-barred. For the reasons stated herein, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. However, the petition, and pending motions, will be dismissed, without prejudice.
According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted for murder and related charges, and sentenced on June 7, 1988, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to a sentence of "triple life w/105 yr. stip." (Petition, ¶¶ 1-3). Respondent's letter in opposition to Petitioner's motions (hereinafter "Respondent's Letter), docket entry 15, notes that Petitioner's sentence was a life term, with a 30-year period of parole ineligibility. Petitioner states that the convictions were affirmed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division ("Appellate Division"), and that his petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court was denied. (Pet., ¶¶ 8-11). Respondent confirms that the petition for certification was denied on June 12, 1992. (Respondent's Letter, p. 2).
Petitioner notes that he filed a motion for post-conviction relief ("PCR") in the trial court, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. (Pet., ¶¶ 12-17). Respondent confirms that two post-conviction documents were filed by Petitioner, showing 1994 dates; however, Respondent states that neither post-conviction relief document reflects a PCR motion. (Respondent's Letter, p. 2).
Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on or about October 19, 2010. He was advised of his rights pursuant to Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000) on November 1, 2010. Petitioner has since filed ten motions, which remain pending on this Court's docket.
In his habeas petition, Petitioner argues as Grounds for Relief that his judgment should be vacated for lack of jurisdiction. Grounds are set forth as follows:
A. Ground I: There is a controversy in law and equity;
B. Ground II: Petitioner['s] rights were constitutionally violated under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment . . . when the State legislation Encroached and failed to define the "man" in any of the statutes adjudicated. The statutes identify a broad definition "as to" a 'person' which failed to include the "man" that was convicted, further constituting human Rights violations.
C. Ground III: Petitioner's [rights were violated] when both the lower court failed to establish jurisdiction on the record, thereby causing ...