STONE v. THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS et al

Filing 35

Memorandum Opinion & Order VACATING the form entered on the docket as entry 32 . Upon analysis of the application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from this Court's dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, the COURT DENIES the APPLICATION, and further DENIES Plaintiff's motion to seal his applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 10/24/2012. (lec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROGER B. STONE, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

:

Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez

:

Civil Action No. 11-3229

:

THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE :
OFFICE OF THE COURTS, VICINAGE I
of SUPERIOR COURT, THE STATE OF :
NEW JERSEY, and J. DOES #1 to #100, :
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER

:

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal from this Court’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim, and on Plaintiff’s motion to seal his applications for in forma
pauperis status; and
The Court having considered Plaintiff’s requests; and
The Court finding that appeal may be taken in forma pauperis if the appellant is
unable to pay costs and the appeal is taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a); and
The Court further finding that appellate review is made in good faith whenever an
appellant seeks review of an issue that is not frivolous when viewed from an objective
standard, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); and
The Court finding that Plaintiff has failed to advance reasoned, non-frivolous
argument on the law and facts in support of issues raised on appeal; and
The Court therefore certifying that the appeal from this Court’s decision has not
been taken on good faith; and

The Court finding that a motion to seal is governed by the requirements set forth
in Local Civil Rule 5.3, which begins with the presumption that “all materials and
judicial proceedings are matter of public record and shall not be sealed,” L. Civ. R.
5.3(a)(4); and
To override this presumption of public access, the moving party bears the burden
of showing that “good cause” exists for the protection of the material. “Good cause is
established when it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly
defined and serious injury.” Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.
1995) (citing Pansy v. Borough of Straudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (1994)); and
Accordingly, in any motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access, “the motion
papers shall describe (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the
legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly
defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d)
why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.” L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2);
The Court finding that Plaintiff’s attorney has argued “I believe [the IFP
applications] clearly should be sealed from the public if requested for numerous policy
reasons, . . . for example, if a member of the public had knowledge that the IFP applicant
has a job or is wealthy, they would be free to notify the Court that the IFP form was
possibly fraudulent.”
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to seal his applications
for in forma pauperis status.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2012 that the form entered on the
docket as entry [32] is hereby VACATED.
Upon analysis of the application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from this
Court’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, the Court
DENIES the application, and further DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal his applications
to proceed in forma pauperis.
/s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez
JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ
U.S.D.J.

3