The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert B. Kugler United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
1. On December 21, 2011, the Clerk received Petitioner's submission purporting to operate as his § 2254 habeas petition, see Docket Entry No. 1; the submission arrived accompanied by a document purporting to operate as Petitioner's in forma pauperis application. See Docket Entry No. 1-1.
2. Petitioner, an inmate currently confined at the Adult Diagnostic & Treatment Center, Avenel, New Jersey, was convicted, on March 18, 2004, of a slew of sexual offenses. See Docket Entry No. 1, at 1; see also > (listing Petitioner's offenses).
3. The Petition is silent as to the circumstances of Petitioner's direct appeal (if such was taken) and as to circumstances of his post-conviction relief ("PCR") proceedings, if such were commenced; the Petition merely states that Petitioner's certain, unspecified application was denied by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a certain, unspecified date. See id. at 2. This Court's own research detected only one decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, State v. Venzie, 208 N.J. 336 (2011); that decision was issued on September 9, 2011, that is, about seven and a half years after Petitioner's conviction.
4. The information provided in the Petition does not allow this Court to determine whether the Petition is timely or duly exhausted. Moreover, the content of the Petition introduces doubt as to the nature of challenges Petitioner is interested in litigating in this matter, since Petitioner's claims include: (a) allegations suggesting violation of his Miranda rights; (b) equal protection challenges based on the change in sentencing regime enacted by the State decades before Petitioner was sentences; (c) assertions that his term of imprisonment violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; (d) retroactivity claims based, puzzlingly enough, on the holding of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that is, on the case decided years before Petitioner's conviction and sentence; (e) allegations challenging merger (or denial of such merger) as to Petitioner's sentences under state sentencing law; and even (f) a claim of Petitioner's "actual innocence" which is, in actuality, a challenge to the veracity of one of the State's witnesses who, seemingly, testified during Petitioner's criminal proceedings. See Docket Entry No. 1.
5. So stated, Petitioner's claims prevent this Court from intelligently assessing Petitioner's position, substantively and procedurally. A fortiori, the Court cannot expect Respondents to answer Petitioner's claims which nature and exact content the Court itself cannot understand. Therefore, in order to ensure Petitioner's full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims, the Court will direct Petitioner to submit a clear and concise amended petition stating Petitioner's claims (and asserting specific facts in support of each claim, rather than lengthy generalities expressing Petitioner's view as to what the law ought to be).
6. Moreover, in light of Petitioner's commencement of a Section 2254 action, this Court is obligated to provide Petitioner with notice, pursuant to the holding of Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), of the following consequences of filing such an application under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") and to give Petitioner an opportunity to file one all-inclusive § 2254 application.
Under the AEDPA, petitioners challenging the legality of their detention pursuant to a State decision must marshal in one § 2254 application all the arguments they have to collaterally attack that decision and, except in extremely limited circumstances, file this one all-inclusive application within one year of the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Therefore, Petitioner shall state all his habeas claims in his amended petition. IT IS, therefore, on this 3rd day of February , 2012, ORDERED that Petitioner's application to prosecute his habeas challenges in forma pauperis is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner's § 2254 application is dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner's filing of a clear and concise amended habeas petition marshaling all Petitioner's habeas challenges; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate this action by making a new and separate entry on the docket reading, "CIVIL CASE TERMINATED." Such termination is not a dismissal on merits, and this Court does not withdraw its jurisdiction over this action. The Clerk will be directed to reopen this ...