MAPLE v. NAVIENT

Filing 3

WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER denying #1 Application IFP. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 5/10/2024. (lag, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LENORA MAPLE,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 24-5845 (SDW) (LDW)
WHEREAS OPINION AND ORDER

v.
May 10, 2024

NAVIENT,
Defendant.
WIGENTON, District Judge.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Lenora Maple’s
(“Plaintiff”) filing of a complaint (D.E. 1 (“Complaint”)) and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (D.E. 1-2 (“IFP Application”)), and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions;
and
WHEREAS a district court may allow a plaintiff to commence a civil action without
paying the filing fee—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff demonstrates that he or
she is “unable to pay such fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and
WHEREAS the IFP Application contains material inconsistencies and thus must be
denied. To be sure, Plaintiff’s IFP Application indicates on the one hand that she has no assets,
income, expenses, debt, or bank accounts. (D.E. 1-2 at 1–5.) On the other hand, the IFP
Application states that Plaintiff has a home, albeit in pre-foreclosure; that she has a fixed income;
and that she receives support from her adult children. (Id. at 5.) None of those items are accurately

reflected in the IFP Application, and therefore, this Court is unable to discern whether Plaintiff is
able to pay the filing fee; therefore
IT IS, on this 10th day of May 2024,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP Application is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30)
days to file an amended IFP Application in which she must completely and accurately disclose the
required information. Failure to file an amended IFP Application may result in the closure of this
matter.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Susan D. Wigenton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.
Parties

2