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.

Ronald Jones v. New Jersey Parole Board

July 18, 2011

RONALD JONES, PETITIONER,
v.
NEW JERSEY PAROLE BOARD, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheridan, Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Petitioner Ronald C. Jones, a prisoner currently confined at Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondents are the New Jersey Parole Board, Warden Larry Glover, and the Attorney General of New Jersey.

For the reasons stated herein, the Petition must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. On October 19, 1981, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of 55 years of imprisonment, with 25 years of parole ineligibility. See Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153, 155 (3d Cir. 1999).*fn1

On January 8, 1993, Petitioner filed his first § 2254 habeas petition, challenging his conviction, in this Court. See Jones v. Beyer, Civil No. 93-0164 (D.N.J.). On January 24, 1994, United States District Judge John F. Gerry dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Petitioner's second § 2254 habeas petition was also dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. See Jones v. Morton, Civil No. 95-1296 (D.N.J.).

Petitioner's third § 2254 habeas petition was dismissed in 1998 as a prohibited second or successive petition or, in the alternative, as time-barred. See Jones v. Morton, Civil No. 97- 5606 (D.N.J.). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed on the ground that the third petition was time-barred. Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999).

Petitioner's fourth and fifth habeas petitions were both dismissed in 2002 as time-barred. Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No. 01-0337 (D.N.J.); Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No. 02-4612 (D.N.J.).

In 2003, Petitioner filed his sixth § 2254 petition.

Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No. 03-3927 (D.N.J.). On September 8, 2003, United States District Judge Joseph E. Irenas found that the petition was "second or successive" and transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which thereafter denied Petitioner leave to proceed with a second or successive petition.

Petitioner filed his seventh § 2254 petition on March 30, 2004. Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No. 04-1529 (D.N.J.). On January 19, 2003, United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that it was a second or successive petition that Petitioner had not obtained authorization to file. On April 6, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability as follows:

The foregoing application for a certificate of appealability is denied. Jones sought to file a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. Because Jones had not obtained the necessary authorization to do so from this Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2005), the District Court lack jurisdiction to consider the petition, see Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002). Jones has not shown that the District Court's decision to dismiss the petition arguably was incorrect. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

Jones v. Hendricks, No. 05-1269 (3d Cir. April 6, 2005).

Petitioner filed his eighth § 2254 petition in 2006. Jones v. Hayman, Civil No. 06-5725 (D.N.J.). On December 8, 2006, United States District Judge Noel L. Hillman dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive petition. The Court of Appeals granted a certificate of appealability as to Petitioner's ninth claim, relating to the 2006 denial of parole, vacated the District Court's decision as to that claim only, and remanded. Jones v. Hayman, No. 06-5122 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2007). On remand, Judge Noel L. Hillman of this Court denied on the merits the challenge to the 2006 denial of parole. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Jones v. Hayman, No. 09-3334 (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2009).

Petitioner filed his ninth § 2254 petition in March, 2007. Jones v. Hayman, Civil No. 07-1505 (D.N.J.). On April 17, 2007, United States District Judge Robert B. Kugler dismissed the ninth petition as second or successive.

Petitioner filed his tenth § 2254 petition in 2008. Jones v. Hauck, Civil No. 08-1601 (D.N.J.). On April 11, 2008, United States District Judge Noel L. Hillman dismissed the tenth petition as second or successive. On July 23, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. Jones v. Hauck, No. 08-2251 (3d Cir. July 23, 2008).

On July 31, 2009, Petitioner filed his eleventh § 2254 habeas petition. Jones v. Glover, Civil No. 09-3806 (D.N.J.) There, Petitioner asserted 23 grounds for relief, all of which challenged the original conviction. On January 27, 2010, Judge Renee Marie Bumb dismissed the eleventh petition as second or successive. On April 30, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Jones v. Glover, No. 10-1469 (3d Cir. April 30, 2010).

Petitioner's challenge to the 2008 denial of parole was originally opened to this Court in a Motion [53] for Enforcement of Injunctive Relief Order and Appropriate Sanctions, dated November 12, 2008, in Jones v. Brown, Civil No. 02-3045 (D.N.J.). As the challenge to the 2008 denial of parole was unrelated to the claims asserted in Civil No. 02-3045, this Court severed that claim, directed the opening of a new and separate matter for that claim, and granted Petitioner leave to file an amended pleading in the new action. Petitioner submitted an Amended Petition [8] dated December 9, 2009.

This, then, is Petitioner's twelfth petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, but the first challenging the 2008 denial of parole. In the "Preliminary Statement" Plaintiff asserts that he was wrongfully denied parole on September 6, 2006, and again on June 25, 2008. With respect to the 2006 parole decision, his claims are identical to those raised and decided on the merits in Jones v. Hayman, Civil No. 06-5725 (D.N.J.), and ...


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.