Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

McNamara v. Charles

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 21, 2017



          Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.D.J.


         This 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.


         In his 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. Cassidy.
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!

         (ECF 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 9.)

         Petitioner 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.)

         Moshood 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.)

         III. ANALYSIS

         At this 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. ...

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.