ROSS v. ANDAJAR et al
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
Civ. No. 20-18891 (NLH) (AMD)
MR. ANDAJAR, et al.,
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
ECF No. 5.
Plaintiff submitted a new application on the form for
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.
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.
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
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).
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?