BEY v. MANSFIELD TWP. MUNICIPAL COURT et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/20/2020. (cry, )
Case 1:20-cv-15700-NLH-KMW Document 6 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMIL AMIN BEY
MANSFIELD TWP. MUNICIPAL
COURT and JUDGE DENNIS P.
JAMIL AMIN BEY
719B COUNTRY CLUB PKWY
MOUNT LAUREL, NJ 08054
Plaintiff appearing pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Jamil Amin Bey, appearing pro se, filed a
complaint alleging violations of his federal constitutional
rights, among other claims, without submitting the required
filing fee or filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis
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.
The entire fee to be paid in
advance of filing a civil complaint is $400.
Under Title 28,
section 1915 of the United States Code, however, a court may
Case 1:20-cv-15700-NLH-KMW Document 6 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 30
allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if he
submits a proper IFP application.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Because Plaintiff had failed to pay the filing fee or
submit an IFP application, the Clerk of the Court was ordered to
administratively terminate this action, without filing the
Complaint or assessing a filing fee.
(ECF No. 4).
was further granted leave to apply to re-open within 45 days by
either paying the filing fee or submitting the proper IFP
On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff submitted an IFP
application on the correct form.
(ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff’s application remains deficient.
“$0.00” to every question on the form regarding his income,
assets, and monthly expenses, and in response to Question 11,
which states “Provide any other information that will help
explain why you cannot pay the costs of these proceedings,”
Plaintiff simply stated “Please see Attached Affidavit of
However, the attached “Affidavit of Financial Statement”
provides no additional information regarding Plaintiff’s
finances or ability to pay the costs of this proceeding;
instead, it states only that Plaintiff “does not have, or
possess, any gold or silver coins” and then claims that “Your
demand for a ‘Financial Statements’ is used as an instrument to
Case 1:20-cv-15700-NLH-KMW Document 6 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 31
deny me due process of law and right to free access to the
(ECF No. 5).
The “Affidavit” in fact appears to be a
boilerplate form identical to ones previously rejected by courts
in this district, which found that the form, and its claims
regarding “gold or silver coins” and the constitutionality of
the requirement to submit financial information, does not “have
anything in common with the governing legal regime and the
requirements set forth by the applicable statute.”
El Ameen Bey
v. Stumpf, 825 F. Supp. 2d 537, 547-50 (D.N.J. 2011).
“Boilerplate ‘averment’ that Plaintiff possess[es] no ‘gold or
silver coins’ changes nothing for the purposes of this Court's
analysis, since such fact, even if true, does not indicate that
Plaintiff do[es] not have assets within the meaning of Section
Id. at 551.
The Court finds that without further explanation as to
Plaintiff’s assets and monthly expenses, it does not have
sufficient information to properly assess Plaintiff’s ability to
pay the costs associated with this proceeding.
Plaintiff’s IFP application is deficient, and will be denied
Plaintiff will be permitted to file another,
proper and complete IFP application within twenty (20) days.
An appropriate Order follows.
Date: November 20, 2020
At Camden, New Jersey
/s Noel. L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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?