NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________

:

JOLANDA BORDLEY JACKSON-EL, :

: Civil Action No. 11-4199 (RMB)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : OPINION

:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE :

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

:

APPEARANCES:

JOLANDA BORDLEY JACKSON-EL, Petitioner pro se

1423 Elwood Road

Hammonton, New Jersey 08037 

BUMB, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court by way of Jolanda Bordley

Jackson-El’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons discussed below,

Petitioner will be granted thirty days to resubmit her petition, as

it currently does not comply with the Section 2254 Habeas Rules. 

I. BACKGROUND

On July 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition,

Petitioner states that she was convicted of “speeding and driving

while license revoked.” (Pet. at ¶3.) The petition further states

that “THIS IS A MOORISH AMERICAN UNDER FEDERAL CLASSIFICATIONS;

Case 1:11-cv-04199-RMB Document 2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 18
NATIONAL ARCHIVE RECORD GROUP 147 BK.521 FILE 5-39, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE BM:$WD:144-35-0, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1-17, UNIQUE

IDENTIFIER 1237-7 HIERARCHAL CODE R1.01.052.004,FEDERAL CODE 667,

FEDERAL CODE 463AND OUR AUTHORITY COOK COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS

DOC#10105905 BJ.521 PG.579" (Id. at I(3)(B).) 

The petition further states: “THE DEFENDANT IS NATIVE AMERICAN

ACCORDING TO HIS CLASSIFICATIONS AND PROTECTIONS, ALSO MR. MARTINEZ

HAS DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITYS [sic] ACCORDING TO HIS CLASSIFICATION AND

STATUS.” (Id. at I(4)(A)(3).) Finally, the petition states that

“On July 14, 2011, Jolanda Bordley Jackson-El was kidnapped by a

Mullica Township, NJ police person who represented himself as a

Verizon employee without notice of warrant or reasonable cause. 

She has been detained in the Atlantic County jail since that time.” 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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 and any supporting submissions must be

construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v.

Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General,

878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414

F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969).

B. Analysis

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that: “[t]he Supreme Court, a

Case 1:11-cv-04199-RMB Document 2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 19
Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of

a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only

on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Rule 2(c)

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Court requires, inter alia, that the petition: (1) specify

all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2) state

the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief

requested. R. 2(c) (1)-(3). Further, Rule 2(d) requires that the

petition “substantially follow either the form appended to [the

Rules] or a form prescribed by a local district court rule.” R.

2(d). A district court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition,

summarily or otherwise, if it appears from the face of the petition

that petitioner does not claim a constitutional violation, as

required by § 2254(a). Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir.

1985); Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner’s current petition does not meet these

requirements. Specifically, it is not clear to the Court from the

face of the petition, the grounds for relief available to

Petitioner; the facts Petitioner alleges to support those grounds;

or the relief Petitioner is requesting from this Court. Further,

it is not clear to the Court what conviction the Petitioner is

challenging and whether she is “in custody” pursuant to that

Case 1:11-cv-04199-RMB Document 2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 20
conviction.1 Finally, Petitioner has not alleged the deprivation

of a federal right. 

Therefore, Petitioner shall be granted 30 days from the date

of this Opinion to resubmit an amended petition that complies with

Rule 2 of the Section 2254 Habeas Rules. The Clerk of the Court

shall provide Petitioner with a blank form for a Petition for

Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State Custody

(Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the petition

does not comply with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Court. Petitioner shall be

granted 30 days from the date of this Opinion to resubmit an

amended petition that complies with the Section 2254 Habeas Rules. 

In the event that Petitioner fails to submit an amended petition

within 30 days, the Court will enter an order without further

notice that dismisses the petition in its entirety pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2243. An appropriate order follows.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

United States District Judge

Dated: December 12, 2011

1

 The Court notes that a petitioner must be “in custody” under the

conviction he is attacking when the petition is filed, in order for this Court

to have jurisdiction. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-92 (1989). See

also 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Case 1:11-cv-04199-RMB Document 2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 21