MADRIGAL v. ZUNIGA et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM, ORDER Clerk shall reopen this matter. Ordered Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to pay filing fee is Granted. Directing Clerk to administratively terminate this case. nm 4/27. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/27/17. (jbk, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
CELSO LAREDO MADRIGAL,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
LETICIA ZUNIGA, ESQ. and
J. DAVID ALCANTRA, ESQ.,
Defendants.
Civ. Action No. 16-9415 (RMB)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in
South
Woods
State
Prison,
submitting a complaint.
initiated
this
civil
action
by
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not
pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees (“IFP application”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915.
This Court, therefore, terminated the action, subject to
reopening,
upon
Plaintiff’s
payment
of
the
filing
submission of a properly completed IFP application.
3, 4.)
fee
or
(ECF Nos.
This matter is before this Court upon Plaintiff’s letter
request for additional time to pay the filing fee.
(ECF No. 5.)
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension
of time, but Plaintiff should note that the Court pre-screened
the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and found
that
Plaintiff
failed
to
state
1
a
claim
against
Zuniga
and
Alcantra because they are not state actors subject to liability
under
42
U.S.C.
§
1983.
(Opinion,
ECF
No.
3
at
6-7.)
Additionally, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claim for enforcement of an arbitration
award.
(Id. at 8-9.)
If Plaintiff reopens this action by
paying the filing fee or submitting an IFP application, but he
cannot state a cognizable federal claim in an amended complaint,
he
will
not
get
a
refund
of
the
filing
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(“[n]otwithstanding
portion
that
thereof,
may
have
any
been
fee.
28
filing
paid,
U.S.C.
fee,
the
court
or
§
any
shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .
the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted . . .”)
IT IS therefore on this 27th day of April 2017,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this matter; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time
to
pay
the
filing
fee
or
submit
a
properly
completed
IFP
application, (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; Plaintiff shall have 30
days from the date of this Order to pay the filing fee or submit
a properly completed IFP application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively
terminate this case, Plaintiff is informed that administrative
2
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 if it was originally
filed timely, see Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands,
705 F.3d 80, 84 n.2 (2013) (describing prisoner mailbox rule
generally); Dasilva v. Sheriff's Dept., 413 F. App’x 498, 502
(3rd Cir. 2011) (“[The] statute of limitations is met when a
complaint is submitted to the clerk before the statute runs
….”); and it is further
ORDERED
stating
that
that
upon
he
wishes
receipt
to
of
reopen
a
writing
this
case,
from
and
Plaintiff
either
a
complete in forma pauperis application or payment of the filing
and administrative fees within the time allotted by this Court,
the Clerk of the Court will be directed to reopen this case; and
it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of
this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
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?