Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Louis v. Bonds

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 16, 2018

ALBERT V. LOUIS, JR., Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN WILLIE BONDS, Respondent.

          Albert V. Louis, Jr., Petitioner pro se.

          Gregory R. Bueno Office of the Attorney General Counsel for Respondent

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Petitioner 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On 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[1] 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 following claims:

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 The N.J.S.P.B. and it's members know of the Appellate Division's latest unpublished decisions regarding N.J.S.P.B.'s exceeding of an inmate's max date by not adherent [sic] to the court order in other actions, of the same, my liberty became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.

         ECF No. 4, Am. Pet. ¶ 13.

         The 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, 74-77.

         On 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.

         On 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 ...


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.