ROSS v. ANDAJAR et al

Filing 7

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 2/16/2021. (pr,n.m)

Case 1:20-cv-18891-NLH-AMD Document 7 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
KEVIN ROSS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civ. No. 20-18891 (NLH) (AMD)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
MR. ANDAJAR, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
______________________________:
APPEARANCE:

Kevin Ross
5 Grant Street
Portland, ME 04101
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiff Kevin Ross seeks to bring this civil action in
forma pauperis (“IFP”), without prepayment of fees or security,
asserting a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

See ECF No. 6.

The Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP original application
because it was on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s short
form and did not include information this District requires on
IFP applications, e.g., anticipated future income, two-years
employment history, statement of assets, monthly expenses, etc.
ECF No. 4.

The complaint was administratively terminated and

Plaintiff instructed to either pay the $350 filing fee and $52

Case 1:20-cv-18891-NLH-AMD Document 7 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 29

administrative fee or submit a new application on the
appropriate form.

ECF No. 5.

Plaintiff submitted a new application on the form for
prisoners.

ECF No. 6.

If Plaintiff is currently incarcerated,

the application is incomplete because he did not submit an
account statement for the previous six months.
1915(a)(2).

28 U.S.C. §

If Plaintiff is not incarcerated, he did not

complete the correct form.

This matter will be administratively

terminated pending submission of the filing and administrative
fees or a completed IFP application.

To complete his

application, Plaintiff must either submit a prison account
statement or the long form application.
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

The Clerk will

be directed to reopen the matter once Plaintiff submits a new
application.

An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: February 16, 2021
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

An administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes
of the statute of limitations. A case re-opened pursuant to the
terms of the accompanying Order is not subject to the statute of
limitations time bar if it was originally submitted 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) (District Court retains jurisdiction over, and
can re-open, administratively closed cases).
1

2