TURNER V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER reopening case; ORDERED that Pltf's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; ORDERED that the Complaint shall be filed; ORDERED that SUMMONS SHALL NOT ISSUE at this time as the Court's sua sponte screening has not yet been completed, etc. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 9/30/2016. (dmr)(n.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
TIMOTHY A. TURNER,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civ. No. 16-4727 (RBK) (KMW)
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN, et al.,
:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :
Previously, this matter was administratively terminated as Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed another application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this case. Leave to
proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. 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
as will Plaintiff’s request for case consolidation.
Therefore, IT IS this 30th day of September, 2016,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this case; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint shall be filed; 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 the time to serve process under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) is hereby extended
to the date 90 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 United States Attorney
for the State of New Jersey and on the warden for F.C.I. Fairton; 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 Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S. Ct. 627, 632 (2016), 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 simultaneous, cumulative 20% deduction for each case
a court has mandated a deduction under the PLRA; i.e., Plaintiff would be subject to a 40%
deduction if there are two such cases, a 60% deduction if there are three such cases, etc., until all
fees have been paid in full; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), in each month that the amount in
Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, 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, in accordance with Bruce, until the
$350.00 filing fee is paid. Each payment shall reference the civil docket numbers of the actions
to which the payment should be credited; and it is finally
2
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff by
regular U.S. mail.
s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
3
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?