United States District Court, D. New Jersey
James Clauso, No. 59252 SBI 8532A South Woods State Prison
Petitioner Pro se
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Thomas James Clauso, a prisoner presently incarcerated at the
South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, filed this
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, which appears to challenge the conditions of his
confinement. See ECF No. 1. At this time, the Court
will review the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases (amended Dec. 1, 2004). See
also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of
Ground One of the Petition, Petitioner states that
“Guard Goldsborugh along with Guard Jackson refuse to
let me out of the cell since June 27, 2018. Both guards
called me a cracker.” ECF No. 1 at 5. He then said to
the guards, “Fuck You.” Id. Both guards
apparently run the yard list for recreation. Id. He
also alleges that he wrote the warden about his concern and
also states that it is not good for one's mental health
to be behind a solid door. Id.
Ground Two, Petitioner states that he has “the federal
and state constitutional right to a hearing to due process
before any right [or] privilege can be taken” and that
“these guards and warden are” “liars and
oppressors.” Id. at 7.
Ground Three, Petitioner alleges that he is a veteran who was
honorably discharged, is disabled and in a wheelchair, and a
great grandfather. Id. at 8.
Ground Four, Petitioner alleges that (1) his soulmate and
partner of forty years is in U.S. Court in Newark to get his
papers filed, (2) he has a son and a daughter, (3) he is
being tortured, (4) he is 6'4”, 260 lbs., and 71
years old, and the remainder of the ground is illegible
(“I had 2 [illegible] 24 day 2”). Id. at
in the section of the Petition in which the Petitioner is
supposed to address the timeliness of his Petition, the
Petitioner states that he has a rash and scratching, and the
guards and administration are causing him medical problems.
Id. at 14.
generally reiterates throughout the Petition that
“there was no hearing (no disciplinary charge) no due
process no charge no hearing.” See,
e.g., id. at 1. As for his relief, he would
like to go to the recreation yard and to see sun, clouds, and
rain. Id. at 15. II. DISCUSSION
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28, section 2243 of the U.S. Code, provides in relevant part
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a
writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue
an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ
should not be granted, unless it appears from the application
that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards
than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se
habeas petition must be construed ...