Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120424_0000857.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-26 01:08:00
Document Index: 717982678

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Chaka Kwanzaa v. Administrator Hughes
Chaka Kwanzaa v. Administrator Hughes
CHAKA KWANZAA, PETITIONER,v.ADMINISTRATOR HUGHES, RESPONDENT.
This matter is before the court pursuant to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed by petitioner Chaka Kwanzaa ("Kwanzaa"), challenging state prison disciplinary actions that occurred in 1999, and which allegedly resulted in the loss of 390 days commutation credits. For the reasons stated below, the petition will be dismissed with prejudice as untimely and moot.
According to the allegations contained in the petition, Kwanzaa is challenging prison disciplinary actions taken against him in 1999. These actions resulted in the loss of 390 days of good time credits. Kwanzaa alleges that he had appealed these state prison disciplinary actions to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, and that the Appellate Division reversed the prison disciplinary findings in an unpublished opinion on July 21, 2003 in Kwanzaa v. DOC, A-5087-01 (N.J. Super. A.D. July 21, 2003).
Kwanzaa admits that he has attempted to challenge these prison disciplinary matters in several 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints. He relates that he had filed a § 1983 action, Kwanzaa v. Mee, et al., Civil No. 09-5132 (SRC), which is currently pending, but his claims regarding the 1999 prison disciplinary actions and loss of commutation credits had been dismissed as time-barred. See June 28, 2011 Opinion in Kwanzaa v. Mee, et al., Civil No. 09-5132 (SRC), at docket entry no. 6. Kwanzaa also mentions other earlier actions he has filed
with regard to this issue. This Court takes judicial notice of Kwanzaa's federal court actions in this District. In particular, Kwanzaa had raised claims in several § 1983 complaints concerning the very same 1999 prison disciplinary action at issue herein, all of which either the entire complaint was dismissed, see Kwanzaa v. Morton, et al., Civil No. 98-2709 (AET); Doe v. Knowles, et al., Civil No. 03-3956 (AET),*fn1 or the particular claims were dismissed, see Kwanzaa v. Brown, et al., Civil No. 05-5976 (RMB). Kwanzaa had filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to renewing the claim in Civil No. 05-5976 (RMB). In an Opinion and Order issued November 17, 2009, this Court denied reconsideration, finding that Kwanzaa's claims regarding the 1999 disciplinary action and classification issue were time-barred and no equitable tolling applied. In the November 17, 2009 Opinion and Order, this Court also granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants in that action with respect to his then-surviving claims brought in the 2005 action. Consequently, Kwanzaa has attempted to relitigate this claim for many years without success via a civil rights action under § 1983. However, this appears to be the first time Kwanzaa sought to gain habeas relief with respect to this 1999 prison disciplinary issue that resulted in the loss of 390 days commutation credit.
Kwanzaa seeks his immediate release from prison. It appears that Kwanzaa was released from prison on or before March 1, 2012. He filed a notice of change of address with the Court, which was received on March 1, 2012, indicating that he now resides at 802 Maryland Avenue, Apt. C in Atlantic City, New Jersey. (Docket entry no. 3). The New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJDOC") inmate search engine shows that Kwanzaa was released from the Southern State Correctional Facility on February 14, 2012. See https://www6.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/details?x=1062110&n=0.
Kwanzaa brings his habeas petition as a pro se litigant. 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), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).
B. Habeas Claim Is Time-Barred
Kwanzaa is not challenging his state court judgment of conviction in this § 2254 habeas action. Rather, he is challenging a decision by a New Jersey state agency, the NJDOC, which imposed sanctions against Kwanzaa for prison disciplinary violations in 1999. One of the sanctions was the loss of 390 days of commutation credit. The other sanctions pertained to the conditions of his confinement.
Kwanzaa had appealed these sanctions before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which had reversed the prison disciplinary findings in an unpublished opinion on July 21, 2003. However, Kwanzaa did not file this habeas action until August 12, 2011, more than eight years after the Appellate Division issued its decision.
Consequently, this action is now time-barred. (See Kwanzaa v. Brown, et al., Civil No. 05-5976 (RMB), docket entry no. 5, at pg. 57 fn 20; and Kwanzaa v. Mee, et al., Civil No. 09-5132 (SRC), docket entry no. 6, at pp. 16-18). Kwanzaa filed this habeas action only after his earlier § 1983 claims regarding this same issue concerning the loss of 390 days of commutation credit had been dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. (Id.). The dismissal of his § 1983 ...