United States District Court, D. New Jersey
ARDIS, Petitioner Pro Se
G. TYNER, Atlantic County Prosecutor JOHN J. SANTOLIQUIDO,
Assistant Prosecutor Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office
Attorney for Respondents
SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Respondents' motion to
dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as
time-barred. Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry 6. Pro se
Petitioner Marc Ardis opposes the motion. Opposition, Docket
Entry 9. The matter is being decided on the papers pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated
below, the Court will reserve ruling on the motion pending
jury trial following a waiver from juvenile court, Petitioner
received a sixty-eight year sentence for first-degree
aggravated sexual assault, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(a);
third-degree aggravated criminal sexual conduct, N.J. Stat.
Ann. § 2C:14-3(a); second-degree burglary, N.J. Stat.
Ann. § 2C:18-2; second-degree sexual assault, N.J. Stat.
Ann. § 2C:14-2(c); third-degree terroristic threats,
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:12-3(a); and first-degree
kidnapping, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:13-1(b). Motion Exhibit
1. The judgment of conviction was entered on June 1, 1993.
Id. Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division (“Appellate
Appellate Division affirmed his convictions, but remanded to
the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence under
state law as “defendant, a sixteen-year old at the time
of the offenses, will be in prison without parole eligibility
until he is seventy-four years of age.” State v.
Ardis, No. A-508-93 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Jul. 18,
1995) (per curiam) (slip op. at 7); Motion Exhibit 2. The New
Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on November 8,
1995. State v. Martin, 670 A.2d 1062 (N.J. 1995);
Motion Exhibit 3.
was resentenced on October 16, 1996. The court revised
Petitioner's sentence to a custodial term of fifty years,
the entirety of which Petitioner would be ineligible for
parole. Motion Exhibit 4.
filed a petition for post-conviction relief
(“PCR”) in the state courts on April 11, 1997.
Motion Exhibit 5. The PCR court denied the petition without
an evidentiary hearing on September 29, 1997. Motion Exhibit
6. Petitioner appealed on July 22, 2002, Motion Exhibit 7,
and the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal nunc pro
tunc on August 22, 2002. See State v. Ardis, No.
A-6161-01 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Jan. 9, 2004) (per curiam)
(slip op. at 3 n.2); Motion Exhibit 8. The Appellate Division
reversed the denial of PCR and remanded for further
petition was again denied without an evidentiary hearing on
December 21, 2005. Motion Exhibit 9. The Appellate Division
affirmed. State v. Ardis, No. A-4602-05, 2007 WL
3342104, at *2 ( N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Nov. 13, 2007); Motion
Exhibit 10. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification
on February 21, 2008. State v. Ardis, 944 A.2d 31
(N.J. 2008); Motion Exhibit 11.
August 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to this
Court, accompanied by a motion for a stay and abeyance
pending a return to the state courts. Ardis v.
Ricci, No. 08-4301 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 22, 2008) (Docket
Entry 1). This Court granted his in forma pauperis
application and issued a Mason Notice and on October
9, 2008. No. 08-4301, Docket Entries 2 & 3. Petitioner
wrote back to the Court inquiring as to the status of the
motion for a stay, and the Court ordered Respondents to
respond to the stay motion. No. 08-4301, Docket Entries 4
& 5. Respondents filed a letter opposing the stay on
March 11, 2009. No. 08-4301, Docket Entry 8. The Court
granted Petitioner's motion for a stay on May 19, 2010.
No. 08-4301, Docket Entry 15.
April 28, 2017, Petitioner submitted an amended § 2254
petition. It was assigned to the Honorable Renée Marie
Bumb, U.S.D.J., and reassigned to the undersigned on June 8,
2017. The Court ordered Respondent to answer or file an
appropriate motion on July 13, 2017. Order to Answer, Docket
Entry 3. Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss on
August 18, 2017.
argues the § 2254 petition is untimely under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) as Petitioner did not comply with this
Court's order staying the habeas proceedings, which
required Petitioner to return to the state courts within 30
days. Petitioner opposes the motion, arguing his PCR
attorneys were ineffective in ...