WILSON v. HAAS et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/9/2012. (nz, )n.m.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DAVID WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES HAAS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 11-7001(NLH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Plaintiff pro se
David Wilson
Northern State Prison
168 Frontage Road
Newark, NJ 07114
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff David Wilson, a prisoner confined at Northern
State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, seeks to bring this civil
action in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees or
security, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Civil actions brought in forma pauperis are governed by 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.
L. No. 104-135, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996) (the “PLRA”),
which amends 28 U.S.C. § 1915, establishes certain financial
requirements for prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil
action or file an appeal in forma pauperis.
Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking to bring a civil action
in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit, including a
statement of all assets and liabilities, which states that the
prisoner is unable to pay the fee.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
The
prisoner also must submit a certified copy of his inmate trust
fund account statement(s) for the six-month period immediately
preceding the filing of his complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
The prisoner must obtain this certified statement from the
appropriate official of each correctional facility at which he
was or is confined.
Id.
Even if the prisoner is granted in forma pauperis status,
the prisoner must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee in
installments.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
In each month that the
amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the
$350.00 filing fee is paid, the agency having custody of the
prisoner shall assess, deduct from the prisoner’s account, and
forward to the Clerk of the Court an installment payment equal
to 20 % of the preceding month’s income credited to the
prisoner’s account.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Plaintiff may not have known when he submitted his
complaint that he must pay the filing fee, and that even if the
full filing fee, or any part of it, has been paid, the Court
must dismiss the case if it finds that the action: (1) is
frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
1915(e)(2)(B) (in forma pauperis actions).
28 U.S.C. §
See also 28 U.S.C. §
1915A (dismissal of actions in which prisoner seeks redress from
a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (dismissal of
prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions).
If
the Court dismisses the case for any of these reasons, the PLRA
does not suspend installment payments of the filing fee or
permit the prisoner to get back the filing fee, or any part of
it, that has already been paid.
If the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while
incarcerated, brought in federal court an action or appeal that
was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or malicious,
or that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, he cannot bring another action in forma pauperis unless
he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
In this action, Plaintiff failed to submit a complete in
forma pauperis application as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1), (2).1
Nor was the application signed.2
See, e.g.,
Tyson v. Youth Ventures, L.L.C., 42 Fed.Appx. 221 (10th Cir.
2002); Johnson v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 769 (2007).
The allegations of the Complaint do not suggest that
Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without
prejudice and the Clerk of the Court will be ordered to
administratively terminate this action, without filing the
complaint or assessing a filing fee.
Plaintiff will be granted
leave to move to re-open within 30 days.3 An appropriate Order
will be entered.
1
In his application, Plaintiff only answered the first page
of questions and left unanswered subsequent questions concerning
assets and liabilities. All questions in the application must
be completed in order for the Court to consider the in forma
pauperis application.
2
Plaintiff’s institutional account information, however, is
complete and properly certified.
3
Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for
purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is
reopened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is
not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was
originally filed timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); McDowell v. Delaware State
Police, 88 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Williams-Guice
v. Board of Education, 45 F.3d 161, 163 (7th Cir. 1995).
At Camden, New Jersey
Dated: January 9, 2012
/s/ Noel L. Hillman________
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?