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.

Clauso v. Bonds

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

December 28, 2018

THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO, Petitioner,
v.
WILLIE BONDS, Respondent.

          Thomas James Clauso, No. 59252 SBI 8532A South Woods State Prison Petitioner Pro se

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         Petitioner 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 jurisdiction.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 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.

         As for 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.

         In 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.

         In 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 10.

         Finally, 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.

         Petitioner 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

         A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Title 28, section 2243 of the U.S. Code, provides in relevant part as follows:

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 thereto.

         A 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 ...


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.