SMART v. CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER: ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this case; ORDERED that plaintiff's IFP application is denied without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-administratively terminate this case; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff may have the case reopened, if, within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff either pre-pays the $350.00 filing fee or submits to the Clerk a complete signed in forma pauperis application. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 7/28/2014. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
SALAHUDDIN SMART,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
:
CORRECTIONS, et al.
:
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :

Civ. No. 12-7782 (RBK) (AMD)
MEMORNADUM ORDER

Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Camden County Correctional Facility in Camden,
New Jersey when he initially submitted this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On January 17, 2013, plaintiff’s original application to proceed in forma pauperis was
denied without prejudice. 1 Subsequently, on February 7, 2013, plaintiff submitted another
application to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 9, 2013, before the Court ruled on
plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff submitted a notice of a
change of address which indicated that he was no longer incarcerated.
On September 23, 2013, the Court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s second application
to proceed in forma pauperis as it lacked a certification signed by the appropriate prison official.
(See Dkt. Nos. 12 & 13.) The matter was then administratively closed. Furthermore, as plaintiff
had indicated one-month prior to that ruling that he had been released from prison, the Court
ordered the Clerk to send to petitioner an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a nonprisoner if he elected to attempt to reopen this action by filing another application to proceed in
forma pauperis. (See id.)
1

It is worth noting that as plaintiff was a prisoner at the time he filed this action, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act applies. See Drayer v. Attorney Gen. of Del., 81 F. App’x 429, 431 (3d
Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1241, 1251 (D.C. Cir. 1997)).
1

On January 17, 2014, the Court received plaintiff’s third application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (See Dkt. No. 15.) Thus, the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this action. This third
application to proceed in forma pauperis was completed on the form for a non-prisoner. Before
the Court ruled on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner,
plaintiff indicated to the Court that he is now back in prison. Indeed, his most recent change of
address indicates that his new address is at Jones Farm, in West Trenton, New Jersey. (See Dkt.
No. 16.)
The Court will deny plaintiff’s pending application to proceed in forma pauperis without
prejudice. As plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed this civil action, and as plaintiff has
now been re-incarcerated, this re-incarceration necessitates that he now file a prisoner in forma
pauperis application, which includes a certified prisoner trust account statement before the Court
can rule on his in forma pauperis application. Accord Smith v. Scott, No. 13-0613, 2014 WL
908423, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2014) (noting that while plaintiff filed his non-prisoner in
forma pauperis application during his release from prison, his reincarceration necessitated the
Magistrate Judge to order him to file a prisoner in forma pauperis application, including a
certified trust account statement). The current pending application to proceed in forma pauperis
does not include such a certified statement. Therefore, plaintiff’s current pending non-prisoner
application to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff will be
ordered to submit a prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis (or prepay the filing fee),
which includes a certified six-month prisoner trust account statement within thirty days if he
elects to continue this action.
Accordingly, IT IS on this _28th__ day of

June_, 2014,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this case;

2

ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 15.) is
denied without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-administratively terminate this case, without filing the
complaint or assessing a filing fee; plaintiff is informed that administrative termination is not a
“dismissal” for purposes of the statute of limitations, and that if the case is reopened, it is not
subject to the statute of limitations time bar provided the original complaint was timely; and it is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff may have the above entitled case reopened, if, within thirty (30)
days of the date of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff either pre-pays the $350.00 filing fee 2 or
submits to the Clerk a complete signed in forma pauperis application, including a certified sixmonth prison account statement; and it is further
ORDERED that upon receipt of a writing from plaintiff stating that he wishes to reopen
this case, and either a complete in forma pauperis application or filing fee, within the time
allotted by this Court, the Clerk will be directed to reopen this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve on plaintiff by regular U.S. mail this Memorandum
Order and a blank form application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner in a civil rights
case.

s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

2

As plaintiff submitted his original complaint prior to May 1, 2013, the proper filing fee would
be $350.00 as opposed to $400.00 as the $50.00 administrative fee would not apply to plaintiff.
3