DARBY v. HENDRICKS et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Pltf's request to re-open action. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 6/11/14. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HANZHA DARBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROY HENDRICKS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-2550 (SDW)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by application filed by Plaintiff, Hanzha Darby,
to re-open his case. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) It appears that:
1. On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint without submitting the requisite filing
fee or a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 1.) Consequently,
this Court issued an Order on May 16, 2013, administratively terminating the action. Plaintiff
was informed by the Order that he could re-open his case upon submission of the filing fee or a
complete IFP application. (ECF No. 2.)
2. On June 7, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a request to re-open his case with another IFP
application. However, the IFP application is deficient as Plaintiff has not provided his six-month
prison account statement or a certification signed by an authorized prison official regarding
Plaintiff’s prison account statement. (ECF No. 4.)
3. This Court observes that Plaintiff recently filed another Complaint against the same
Defendant in this action, Warden Roy Hendricks, concerning the conditions of his confinement
in Darby v. Hendricks, Civil No. 14-3416 (SDW).
That action also was administratively
terminated because Plaintiff failed to submit a complete IFP application as required to proceed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
THEREFORE, IT IS ON THIS _11th day of June, 2014
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to re-open this action is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail.
___s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
United States District Judge
2
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?