United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ALBERT V. LOUIS, JR., Petitioner,
WARDEN WILLIE BONDS, Respondent.
V. Louis, Jr., Petitioner pro se.
Gregory R. Bueno Office of the Attorney General Counsel for
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Albert V. Louis, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a prisoner
currently confined at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton,
New Jersey, has submitted an Amended Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 4.
For the reasons stated below, the Amended Petition will be
dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted.
August 20, 2015, Petitioner submitted his initial Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. ECF No. 1. This Court entered an Opinion and Order
administratively terminating this matter because Petitioner
failed to submit the Petition on the correct form and failed
to meet the filing fee requirement. ECF Nos. 2, 3. Petitioner
eventually submitted the filing fee and an amended petition.
ECF No. 4. Pursuant to the Court's subsequent
Mason notice, he advised that his previous
Amended Petition, ECF No. 4, is his all-inclusive petition,
ECF No. 19. In his Amended Petition, Petitioner raises the
1. The N.J.S.P.B. and it's members know of the Appellate
Division's latest unpublished decisions regarding
N.J.S.P.B.'s exceeding of an inmate's max date by not
adherent [sic] to the court order in other actions, of the
same, my liberty became violated.
The 180 month FET/HIT is excessive, illegal, and is clearly a
violation of my entitled commutation credits. The 11 year
FET, pass [sic] my (April 14, 2018) max date, was then
subtracted by 1, 632 of my good time credits or commutation
credits. The fact that a very clear manipulation of my
entitled credits that would have release[d] me almost 18
months ago. (A legal FET/HIT.) I would have been in prison 9
months pass [sic] my max date.
2. The 180 month FET/HIT exceeds my maximum sentence. On May
03, 2014. My sentence max date is April 14, 2018. That's
(3 yrs 11 months) from May 03, 2014. That's without any
entitled good time/commutation credits violation.
The N.J.S.P.B. action in this, is with clear malice. The
responsibility of this agency is civil, and to ensure the
citizens that corrections was applied. The clear disregard
for that is in the 180 month FET/HIT. The actions of the
Board and Panels were arbitrary and capricious. The
Board's actions and stated concerns appear to be contrary
to the reality they imposed.
4, Am. Pet. ¶ 13.
Court ordered Respondent to file an answer, which they did on
March 30, 2016. ECF No. 34. Thereafter, Petitioner filed
approximately thirty submissions with the Court, some of
which appear to be relevant to his Petition, but the majority
of which appear unrelated. ECF Nos. 40-44; 46, 48, 49, 51-72,
August 4, 2017, this Court entered a supplemental order,
requiring Respondent to address Petitioner's request for
a stay. ECF No. 80. The Court noted that while it was not
entirely clear, it appeared that in his request for a stay,
ECF No. 7, and a subsequent submission, ECF No. 27,
Petitioner may be arguing that he had good cause for failing
to exhaust his claims because he relied on a July 24, 2015
letter he received from the New Jersey Supreme Court. ECF No.
80. Petitioner appears to have “inferred” said
letter to suggest that he did not need to exhaust his claims
with the New Jersey Supreme Court before filing here,
although nothing in the letter supports such an inference.
ECF No. 27.
September 5, 2017, Respondent filed their response to
Petitioner's request for a stay. ECF No. 83. Respondent
argues that Petitioner is not entitled to a stay because
“inferring from the Supreme Court's letter that he
could not pursue further review in the State courts is not
reasonable, and therefore does not constitute good ...