WILLIAMS v. NOGAN

Civil Action No. 15-3159 (MAS).

KEVIN WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. PATRICK NOGAN, et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

KEVIN WILLIAMS, Petitioner, Pro Se.

PATRICK NOGAN, Respondent, represented by OTTO NICHOLAS MONACO , OFFICE OF THE OCEAN COUNTY PROSECUTOR.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent, represented by OTTO NICHOLAS MONACO , OFFICE OF THE OCEAN COUNTY PROSECUTOR.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL A. SHIPP, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Kevin Williams pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon reviewing the Petition, the Court directed Respondents to file a limited answer regarding the timeliness of the Petition. (Order, Aug. 5, 2015, ECF No. 4.) In their Answer, Respondents argued that the Petition was untimely due to delays that occurred during Petitioner's direct appeal of his conviction, which the Court rejected as an invalid argument. (See Order 1-2, Dec. 8, 2016, ECF No. 21.) Instead, based upon the records submitted by Respondents, the Court sua sponte raised another timeliness defense, finding that Petitioner's delay in filing his appeal in the post-conviction relief proceeding rendered the Petition untimely. (Id. at 2.) Because the issue was raised sua sponte, the Court afforded Petitioner an opportunity to respond. (Id. at 2-3.) Thereafter, Petitioner sought an extension to respond, which the Court granted, giving Petitioner another 30 days to respond. (See Order, Jan. 17, 2017, ECF No. 23.) The Court cautioned him that failure to respond will result in the dismissal of the Petition as untimely. (Id. at 3.) To date, Petitioner has not responded.

IT IS therefore on this 26th day of June, 2017.

ORDERED that the Petition is hereby DISMISSED as untimely;

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED, because jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the dismissal of the Petition is correct, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by regular mail, and shall CLOSE the file.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases