UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARK ATKINS,

Civil Action No. 22-5780 (JXN) Petitioner,

v.

OPINION HUDSON COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTER, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Respondents.

NEALS, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner Mark Atkins’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

(ECF No. 1) (the “Petition”). Following Petitioner’s payment of the filing fee, the Court screened the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and directed that Petitioner show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed (see Court’s Mar. 22, 2023, Ord. (ECF No. 7)), which Petitioner failed to do. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. I. BACKGROUND1 Petitioner pled guilty to possession of a controlled dangerous substance. (Petition at 1-2)2. On August 4, 2022, Petitioner was sentenced to five years imprisonment. (Id. at 1). On August 28, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief (the “PCR”). (Id. at 3.) The state

1 The following facts are taken from the Petition, which the Court accepts as true. 2 The Court refers to the ECF header page numbers for the documents discussed herein. court did not respond to the PCR. (Ibid.). On September 29, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition alleging four claims for relief. (Id. at 5-10). II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Under

Rule 2(c), “[h]abeas corpus petitions must meet heightened

pleading requirements . . . .” McFarland v. Scott,

(1994). Indeed, § 2254 petitions must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner,” “state the facts supporting each ground,” “state the relief requested,” be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten, and be signed under penalty of perjury.

Rule 2(c). To that end, a district judge must sua sponte dismiss a § 2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .”

Rule 4. Thus, if a habeas petition “appears legally insufficient on its face,” it is dismissed. McFarland,

(citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION A court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus under

unless the petitioner

exhausted the remedies available in the state courts or exhaustion is excused under

(b)(1)(B). Henderson v. Frank,

(3d Cir. 1998). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, “state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

(1999). “The burden is on the habeas petitioner to prove exhaustion.” DeFoy v. McCullough,

(3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). This means that the “petitioner [] present[ed] a federal claim’s factual and legal substance to the state courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted.” Rainey v. Varner,

(3d Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted). This is demonstrated by the petitioner affording state courts “the opportunity to resolve the federal constitutional issues before he goes to the federal court for habeas relief.”

(citation and internal quotations omitted). Here, the Petitioner was sentenced on August 4, 2022. (Petition at 1). Petitioner filed the

PCR that same month, which the state trial court did not respond to. (Id. at 3). Petitioner also concedes that he did not present his claims to “the highest state court having jurisdiction” over his case. (Id. at 12). Accordingly, Petitioner has not exhausted his claims under

(b)(1). Additionally, Petitioner has not presented any argument as to why the Petition should not be dismissed. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Petition without prejudice. IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY The Petitioner may not appeal from a final order under

unless he has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude [that] the issues

presented [here] are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003) (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. An appropriate order accompanies this Opinion.

s/ Julien Xavier Neals DATED: 11/2/2023 JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge