DORN v. AGUILAR et al
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER granting Plainitff's IFP application; Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint and SUMMONS SHALL NOT ISSUE at this time. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 8/6/2015. (tf, n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
TODD D. DORN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civ. No. 15-6011(NLH)
:
v.
:
OPINION and ORDER
:
OMAR AGUILAR, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Todd D. Dorn, #40604213/1776752
South Woods State Prison
215 Burlington Road South
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Plaintiff Pro se
Plaintiff Todd D. Dorn, an inmate currently confined at
South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, brings this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submits an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court finds that
Plaintiff has submitted a complete application to proceed in
forma pauperis and grants leave to proceed without prepayment of
fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
This case is subject to sua sponte
screening by the Court, and the Complaint will be screened in
due course. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
IT IS therefore on this
6th
day of
August
, 2015,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the
Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that SUMMONS SHALL NOT ISSUE, at this time, as the
Court’s sua sponte screening has not yet been completed; and it
is further
ORDERED that that the time to serve process under FED. R.
CIV. P. 4(m) is hereby extended to the date 120 days after the
Court permits the Complaint to proceed; and it is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and for
purposes of account deduction only, the Clerk shall serve a copy
of this Order by regular mail upon the Attorney General of the
State of New Jersey and the warden of South Woods State Prison;
and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is assessed a filing fee of $350.00
and shall pay the entire filing fee in the manner set forth in
this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2),
regardless of the outcome of the litigation, meaning that if the
Court dismisses the case as a result of its sua sponte
screening, or Plaintiff’s case is otherwise administratively
terminated or closed, § 1915 does not suspend installment
payments of the filing fee or permit refund to the prisoner of
the filing fee, or any part of it, that has already been paid;
and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Siluk v. Merwin, 783 F.3d 421 (3d
Cir. 2015), as amended (Apr. 21, 2015), as amended (Apr. 28,
2015), if Plaintiff owes fees for more than one court case,
whether to a district or appellate court, under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provision governing the mandatory
recoupment of filing fees, Plaintiff’s monthly income is subject
to a single, monthly 20% deduction, “and the cases and/or
appeals that an inmate has filed [sha]ll be paid off
sequentially,” Siluk, 783 F.3d at 426 (emphasis in original);
i.e., the first-filed case shall be paid off in full, then the
second-filed case, etc., until all fees have been paid in full;
and it is further
ORDERED that, with respect to this case, when Plaintiff’s
fees become ripe for payment in accordance with Siluk, in each
month that the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00,
until the $350.00 filing fee is paid, the agency having custody
of Plaintiff shall assess, deduct from Plaintiff’s account, and
forward to the Clerk of the Court payment equal to 20% of the
preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s account,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) and each payment shall
reference the civil docket number of this action.
____s/ Noel L. Hillman____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
At Camden, New Jersey
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?