GADSEN v. NEWARK CLERK'S OFFICE et al
Filing
6
OPINION. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 9/21/2011. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
SANDRA L. GADSDEN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. 11-4577 (JAP)
:
NEWARK CLERK’S OFFICE and
:
JERSEY CITY EDUCATION
:
ASSOCIATION,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
:
SANDRA L. GADSDEN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. 11-4690 (JAP)
:
NEWARK CLERK’S OFFICE and
:
JERSEY CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
:
OPINION
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
PISANO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Sandra Gadsden’s applications to proceed
without prepayment of fees, and accordingly, proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s applications and having found that Plaintiff has shown that
she is unable to pay the required fees or give security thereof, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses both Complaints, however,
because they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I.
Background
Plaintiff commenced these actions by filing Complaints1 that were received by the Court
on August 1, 2011. The following day, the Court received Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in
forma pauperis. In the Complaints, Plaintiff alleges that clerical errors were made in prior
actions2 brought by Plaintiff against Jersey City Education Association and Jersey City Public
Schools. Plaintiff now seeks to reinstate or reopen those cases.
II.
Discussion
After determining that a plaintiff is qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court has
an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen the complaint to determine whether it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. A pro se complaint is construed liberally in
favor of the plaintiff, and it may be dismissed only if the plaintiff can prove “no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Millhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981).
Here, because Plaintiff has shown that she is unable to pay the required fees or give
security thereof, Plaintiff qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s
Complaints must be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Although captioned as Complaints, Plaintiff’s filings appear instead to be motions to reopen
Plaintiff’s prior actions against Jersey City Education Association and Jersey City Public
Schools. Such motions are properly filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in the
1
The two Complaints are nearly identical. The only differences appear to be the named Defendant—Jersey City
Education Association in 11-4577 and Jersey City Public Schools in 11-4690—and the corresponding prior action
Plaintiff seeks to reopen—08-3248 and 08-3249, respectively. Accordingly, the Court considers both Complaints
together.
2
In her pleadings, Plaintiff references numerous docket numbers, including 08-3248, 08-3249 and 07-4861. These
references appear to be actions previously brought by Plaintiff against Jersey City Education Association and Jersey
City Public Schools.
2
courts that rendered the prior decisions, not by way of new complaints. Accordingly, the Court
dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaints for failing to state a claim.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court grants Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma
pauperis, but dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaints for failing to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. An appropriate Order will follow.
/s/ JOEL A. PISANO
United States District Judge
Dated: September 21, 2011
3
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?