CHRUSTOWSKI v. ARCHER & GREINER et al

Filing 7

Memorandum & Order Denying 5 Plaintiff's Second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without prejudice. The Clerk shall administratively terminate this case. If Plaintiff wishes to re-open this case, they shall submit an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis addressing the Court's questions, or pay the filing fee within 14 days of the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/26/2024. (sms2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
RENEE CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-cv-22010 (RMB/EAP)

v.
ARCHER & GREINER, et al.,
Defendants.
RENEE CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-cv-21194 (RMB/SAK)

v.
MELANIE HAMLIN BROWN,
et al.,
Defendants.
RENEE CHRUSTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-cv-21195 (RMB/SAK)

v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
These matters are before the Court upon applications to proceed without
prepaying fees or costs (i.e., in forma pauperis (“IFP”)) by pro se Plaintiff Renee

Chrustowski (“Plaintiff”). As Plaintiff knows from her many lawsuits commenced in
this Court, 1 to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, an applicant must submit an
affidavit that includes a complete list of her assets, among other financial details, and
establishes that she is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Deutsch v.
United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995) (“In this circuit, leave to proceed
[IFP] is based on a showing of indigence.”); see also Roy v. Penn. Nat’l Ins. Co., 2014
WL 4104979, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014). A litigant is not entitled to proceed
without paying; she must prove her entitlement to do so. In re Lassina, 261 B.R. 614,
618 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001). A court’s decision to grant or deny an IFP application is
within its sound discretion, see Cotto v. Tennis, 369 F. App’x 321, 322 (3d Cir. 2010)
(citing Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985)), and based solely on the
economic eligibility of the applicant, Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976).
A court does not abuse its discretion in denying an IFP application when the
applicant’s financial affidavit shows that her monthly income is significantly higher
that her monthly expenses. See Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir. 1983);
Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Similarly, a
court may deny an applicant’s request to proceed without paying fees and costs where
an applicant submits multiple IFP applications that are inconsistent with one another.

1

In addition to the above-captioned cases, see also Chrustowski v. Cumberland
Cnty. Guidance Ctr., Case No. 23-cv-3112-RMB-SAK; Chrustowski v. Cumberland Cnty.
Guidance Ctr., Case No. 23-cv-3113-RMB-SAK; Chrustowski v. NAACP, Case No. 23cv-3692-RMB-SAK; and Chrustowski v. Carney’s Point Twp., Case No. 23-cv-4251RMB-SAK. Except for the latter case, Plaintiff filed IFP applications in each.
2

See Smart v. Gloucester Twp. Mun. Corp., 229 F. App’x 87, 89 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming
decision to revoke a plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and dismiss the plaintiff’s
numerous cases where he had submitted inconsistent IFP applications and failed to
prove his inability to pay filing fee). These propositions should be familiar to Plaintiff. 2
Here, Plaintiff submits three more IFP applications. After reviewing Plaintiff’s
first IFP application in Case No. 23-cv-22010 [Docket No. 1-1 (dated Nov. 1, 2023)],
the Court directed Plaintiff to file an explanation concerning her answers to paragraphs
9 and 11. [Order, Docket 3 (filed Nov. 9, 2023).] Plaintiff had indicated, without
more, that she was on a “30-day removal without pay” from her job. [Docket No. 11, at ¶¶ 9, 11.] On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second IFP application.
[Docket No. 5.] The application merely reiterates that she is “on a 30-day removal
without pay.” [Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11.] It contains no further explanation. [See generally id.]
Plaintiff’s IFP applications in the other above-captioned cases are materially identical
to her first application in Case No. 23-cv-22010. [Compare Case No. 23-cv-21194,
Docket No. 1-1 (dated Oct. 10, 2023), and Case No. 23-cv-21195, Docket No. 1-2
(dated Oct. 9, 2023), with Case No. 23-cv-22010, Docket No. 1-1 (dated Nov. 1, 2023).]
2

The Court thrice denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed without payment of fees
and costs in Case No. 23-cv-3112, observing on August 15, 2023, that Plaintiff’s
average monthly income, compared to her expenses, was sufficient to require Plaintiff
to pay the filing fee. [Order at 2, Docket No. 11.] Moreover, the Court noted that
Plaintiff’s applications contained inconsistencies regarding her savings, expected
income, and the value of Plaintiff’s automobile, among other things. [See generally
Orders, Docket Nos. 5, 9, & 11.] On appeal of the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s
third application to proceed in forma pauperis, [Docket No. 11], the Third Circuit
affirmed on both rationales. [See U.S. Court of Appeals Order, Docket No. 18 (filed
Dec. 12, 2023).]
3

Separately, Plaintiff has filed additional IFP applications in her other litigations
before this Court, including in actions where she already paid the filing fee. [See, e.g.,
Case No. 23-cv-3692, Docket No. 13 (dated Dec. 14, 2023).] This application—which
appears to be her most recent—fails to explain what Plaintiff means by her claim that
she is “on a 30-day removal without pay.” [Id. ¶ 9.] As a result, the Court cannot
determine whether Plaintiff returned to work after her application was submitted and
whether she currently receives an income.

Without sufficient and accurate

information concerning Plaintiff’s employment status and source of income, the Court
does not have the complete picture necessary to determine whether to permit Plaintiff
to proceed without paying fees and costs, to require partial payment of the filing fee,
or to deny her request altogether. See Bullock, 710 F.2d at 103 (“What may be required
by the district court in the exercise of its discretion is a payment which is fair in the
light of the actual financial situation of the particular pro se litigant.”). Accordingly,
IT IS, on this 26th day of March 2024, hereby:
1.

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second IFP application in Case No. 23-cv-

22010 [Docket No. 5] and Plaintiff’s IFP applications in Case Nos. 23-cv-21194
[Docket No. 1-1] and 23-cv-21195 [Docket No. 1-2] are DENIED, without prejudice;
and it is further
2.

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not file Plaintiff’s

Complaints, but rather shall CLOSE Case Nos. 23-cv-22010, 23-cv-21194, and 23-cv21195; and it is further

4

3.

ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to reopen these cases by (a)

submitting an updated application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs
that sufficiently addresses the Court’s questions regarding the status of her
employment and source of income and adequately explains the previously identified
inconsistencies in her other applications to this Court, which shall require further
action from the Court, or (b) paying the filing fee as to each case within fourteen (14)
days of the date hereof, which shall reopen these cases without further action from the
Court; and it is finally
4.

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall MAIL a copy of this

Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff’s address via regular mail and shall NOTE on
the docket of each of the above-captioned cases the date upon which it is mailed
accordingly.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Chief United States District Judge

5