United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.D.J.
matter has been opened to the Court by Petitioner's
filing of a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(ECF No. 1) and a "Motion for Immediate Release."
(ECF No. 5.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will
dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice pursuant to its
screening authority and deny the Motion for Immediate
Release, as Petitioner has neither exhausted his state-court
remedies nor presented extraordinary circumstances sufficient
to warrant pre-trial, pre-exhaustion habeas relief. Because
it appears that Petitioner is also attempting to assert a
claim for denial of access to the courts, the Court will,
however, permit Petitioner to file a new civil action under
§ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 within 45 days to the extent he
can provide facts stating a claim for relief.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petition, Petitioner states that he is a pretrial detainee,
currently detained at Union County Jail, and provides the
following facts in support of habeas relief:
I am a pre-trial detainee wrongly imprisoned for a burglary
based on fraudly [sic] filed DNA match in the N.J.S.P. Codis
System!. . .
In March 2015, 1 appeared with my lawyer... and was
vindicated of a burglary from Montclair, N.J. The instant
case is based on alleged DNA match to the alleged DNA in
Montclair. That case was dismissed because that DNA
wasn't mine. (See Exs, A, B, C) Knowing I was vindicated,
Det. W.V. Coad lodged their case in the Codis System saying
their case was solved by my DNA. I have full discovery in
this case. It's less than smoke and mirrors. I have
written my alleged P.D. (see copy of enclosed letter to Ms.
Kandace Clarke) and my family have called the P.D.s Office
... I'm imprisoned since 12/2/15, yet have never seen
her. I have asked for a ROR and a Pro. Cause hearing.
In view of the above I am falsely imprisoned in violation of
the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and
the 4thAmendment. Several times I have asked for a
probable cause motion and have filled/sent a motion for ROR
or a bail reduction to no avail. I have written A.J.K.
A major problem here supporting my illegal imprisonment is
despite U.S. Supreme Court cases mandating adequate access to
the Courts, there is no law library here! I have hand write
my motions and wait to get copies made. I cannot shepardize!
No. 1, Pet. at 7-8.) In response to the question of whether
he presented his grounds for relief "in all appeals that
were available to you"-, Petitioner states: "I am
pretrial." (Id., Pet. at 8.) In the relief
section of his Petition, Petitioner seeks an Order (1)
providing for his "immediate release", (2)
correcting the allegedly false reports filed in New Jersey
Codis system and nationwide, (3) requiring the jail to
provide him with an adequate law library, and (4) providing
him with competent appointed counsel. (Id., Pet. at
filed the instant Petition on March 17, 2016, and
subsequently submitted a "Motion for Immediate Release,
" which seeks an Order releasing him from confinement
and correcting the false reports. (See ECF No. 5.)
The certification attached to the motion reiterates his
contention that the law library at Union County Jail is
inadequate. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.)
Muftau, Esquire, Second Deputy Counsel for the County of
Union, has entered an appearance on behalf of Director Ron
Charles, and has submitted opposition to Petitioner's
motion. (ECF Nos. 4, 7.) In that submission, Respondent
states that Petitioner was committed to Union County Jail on
December 2, 2015 and is currently awaiting trial. (ECF No. 7,
at 1.) Respondent argues that Petitioner's habeas
Petition should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1)
Petitioner has not alleged or provided evidence that he has
exhausted his available state remedies with respect to his
habeas claims; (2) Petitioner's allegations that his
attorney is ineffective are premature because he has not yet
been convicted; and (3) Petitioner's allegations that the
law library is inadequate are untrue. In reply, Petitioner
argues that he is entitled to relief on his claims. (See
generally, ECF Nos. 8-13.)
time the Court will decide Petitioner's Motion for
Immediate Release and will also screen the Petition and
dismiss it if it appears from the face of the petition that
Petitioner is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 Rule 4 (made applicable to § 2241 through
Rule 1(b)); see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.