United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Anthony Rullan, Petitioner Pro se
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOEL
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Petitioner
Anthony Rullan, a prisoner currently confined at the South
Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, has submitted a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)
IT
APPEARING THAT:
1. In
2011, Petitioner was convicted in New Jersey state court of
two counts of offensive touching, one count of endangering
the welfare of a child, and two counts of sexual assault.
(Pet. 2.) Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal on September 14, 2015 and the New Jersey Supreme Court
denied certification on January 15, 2016. (Pet. 3.) In the
Petition, Petitioner states that he filed a Petition for
Post-Conviction Relief (“PCR”) on February 10,
2016 which “has not been heard or yet decided.”
(Id. at 13). Petitioner then filed the instant
habeas Petition, which is dated April 22, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
The Petition raises three grounds for relief based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id.)
2.
After conducting an initial screening of the Petition, the
Court concluded that the claims may be unexhausted and
ordered Petitioner to show cause why it should not be
dismissed for that reason. (ECF No. 2.) After reviewing
Petitioner's subsequent response (ECF No. 3), the Court
found that the claims are unexhausted and subject to
dismissal for failure to exhaust under 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1). (ECF Nos. 4, 5.)
3.
Though a habeas petition can be stayed in certain limited
circumstances, see Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,
275-76, the Court further found that such circumstances did
not exist in this case because there do not appear to be
timeliness concerns. (July 26, 2016 Opinion 8, ECF No. 4.)
Specifically, because Petitioner filed a timely direct
appeal, requested certification from the New Jersey Supreme
Court, and then filed a timely PCR petition, the one year
statute of limitations which governs habeas petitions has not
begun to run in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641,
653-54 (2012).
4. When
dismissing the Petition, the Court gave Petitioner permission
to file a motion for reconsideration if the state court
determines that Petitioner's PCR petition is untimely or
if Petitioner is “reasonably confused” as to
whether it was “properly filed.” (July
26th Opinion 9, n.4.) The Court further instructed
that any such motion must specify facts showing the basis for
Petitioner's reasonable confusion as to the proper filing
of the PCR petition. (Id.).
5. On
August 28, 2016, Petitioner filed the Motion for
Reconsideration currently before the Court. (ECF No. 7.) The
contents of that Motion have left the Court confused as to
the grounds Petitioner wishes to raise in this matter.
Specifically,
Petitioner states the following:
According to my filing on Thur. March 10, 2016 I had sent to
the Judicial Officer an information briefing in regarding to
the 2011 case. Only in revealing contradiction's of
Accuser's. And Failure of Trial Counsel.
Therefore, the accurate ground's were not in it. Just
those few from the Appellate Counsel, showing it has been
fault.
And on Tue April 12, 2016 Petition Application has been sent
in regarding to the 2007 case.[1]
And by answering question Number 15 in Page 13 within the
Petition Application gave me the opportunity to introduse the
2011 case. By revealing some information as to contradiction
in hoping that you may see the contradiction's of both
case's. As I had explained in the letter dated then June
...