HARRIS v. HOLMES

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/20/2014. (bdk, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GARY HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 14-0460(NLH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Garry Harris
South Woods State Prison
215 Burlington Road South
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Plaintiff pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Gary Harris, a prisoner confined at South Woods
State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, seeks to bring this civil
action in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees or
security, asserting claims for deprivation of his right to free
exercise of his religion, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3, the Clerk shall not be
required to enter any suit, file any paper, issue any process,
or render any other service for which a fee is prescribed,

unless the fee is paid in advance.

Under certain circumstances,

however, this Court may permit an indigent plaintiff to proceed
in forma pauperis.
The entire fee to be paid in advance of filing a civil
complaint is $400.

That fee includes a filing fee of $350 plus

an administrative fee of $50, for a total of $400.

A prisoner

who is granted in forma pauperis status will, instead, be
assessed a filing fee of $350 and will not be responsible for
the $50 administrative fee.

A prisoner who is denied in forma

pauperis status must pay the full $400, including the $350
filing fee and the $50 administrative fee, before the complaint
will be filed.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915, establishes certain financial
requirements for prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil
action in forma pauperis.

Under § 1915, 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.
§ 1915(a)(1).

28 U.S.C.

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.
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

28

The prisoner must obtain this certified

statement from the appropriate official of each correctional
facility at which he was or is confined during such six-month
2

period.

Id.

If the prisoner is granted in forma pauperis status, the
prisoner must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee, in
installments, as follows.

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.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (in forma pauperis actions).

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).
the Court dismisses the case for any of these reasons, § 1915

If

does not suspend installment payments of the filing fee or
permit the prisoner to get back the filing fee, or any part of
3

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 either to prepay the
filing fee or to submit a complete in forma pauperis application
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2), including a
certified institutional account statement.

See, e.g., Hairston,

Sr. v. Gronolsky, 348 F.App’x 716 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming
administrative termination of prisoner civil rights action for
failure to comply with requirements of § 1915); Tyson v. Youth
Ventures, L.L.C., 42 F.App’x 221 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirming
dismissal without prejudice of civil action where prisoner
submitted only uncertified copy of institutional account
statement); Johnson v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 769 (2007)
(same).

See also Rohn v. Johnston, 415 F.App’x 353, 354-55 (3d

Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal without prejudice of civil
action where prisoner failed to submit the required affidavit of
poverty).
To the extent Plaintiff asserts that correctional officials
4

have refused to provide the certified account statement, any
such assertion must be supported by an affidavit detailing the
circumstances of Plaintiff’s request for a certified
institutional account statement and the correctional officials’
refusal to comply, including the dates of such events and the
names of the individuals involved.
The allegations of the Complaint do not suggest that
Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court
will be ordered to administratively terminate this action,
without filing the complaint or assessing a filing fee. 1
Plaintiff will be granted leave to apply to re-open within 30
days.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

At Camden, New Jersey

Dated:

s/Noel L. Hillman
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge

March 20, 2014

1

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); Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases
and explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over,
and can re-open, administratively closed cases).

5