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.

Barge v. Attorney General of State of New Jersey

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 5, 2018

RICHARD BARGE, Petitioner,
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Respondents.

          Richard Barge, New Jersey State Prison Petitioner Pro Se.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Richard Barge, a prisoner presently confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2010 New Jersey state court conviction. ECF No. 1.

         At this time, the Court must screen the Petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to determine if the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner is not entitled to relief. For the reasons expressed below and because the Petition as drafted shows that the claims are time-barred, the Court will dismiss the Petition as untimely and deny a certificate of appealability.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2010, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in New Jersey state court of murder and related firearms offenses. See ECF No. 1, Pet. at 3. Petitioner filed a timely direct appeal, which became final on December 30, 2013, ninety (90) days after the New Jersey Supreme Court denied his petition for certification on October 1, 2013. See Id. at 14.

         On March 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a state court PCR petition. Id. at 14. The PCR petition was denied on May 8, 2015. Id. Petitioner's time for filing a timely appeal to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court expired on June 22, 2015, forty-five days after the entry of the order denying the PRC Petition.[1] More than three months after the expiration of the time for filing an appeal, Petitioner filed the appeal of his PCR denial on September 24, 2015. ECF No. 1 at 14. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the PCR petition on July 31, 2017. Id. Petitioner next filed a timely petition for certification with the Supreme Court of New Jersey on August 1, 2017, which was denied on October 23, 2017. Id.

         Petitioner effectively filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 25, 2018, the date on which he placed the Petition into the prison's mailing system, although it was not electronically filed until July 26, 2018. See Id. at 28. Petitioner's sole ground for relief in the Petition is that he “was denied the right to a fair trial when the court allowed state's witness Steven Goldsboro to identify the defendant as the shooter despite the impermissible suggestiveness of a prior photo identification lineup and the irreparable probability of misidentification.” Id. at 7.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         “Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires a § 2254 petition to “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner, ” “state the facts supporting each ground, ” “state the relief requested, ” be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten, and be signed under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c).

         Habeas Rule 4 requires the Court to sua sponte dismiss a § 2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4. Thus, “[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856. Dismissal without the filing of an answer or the production of the state court record is warranted when “it appears on the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985). See also McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856; United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000) (habeas petition may be dismissed where “none of the grounds alleged in the petition would entitle [the petitioner] to relief”).

         III. DISCUSSION

         The governing statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) is found at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides in relevant part:

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of ...

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.