ECHEVERRIA v. CORVASCE et al

Filing 2

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 8/13/2013. (jjc)

*NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
LUIS TORRAS ECHEVERRIA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
MAURO CORVASCE, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_________________________________________ :

Civ. No. 13-1852 (FLW) (TJB)

OPINION

FREDA L. WOLFSON, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner whose sentence has been completed. He brings this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two police officers for allegedly fabricating evidence used
at trial. The Clerk will not file a civil complaint unless the person seeking relief pays the entire
applicable filing fee in advance or the person applies for and is granted in forma pauperis status
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Local Civil R. 5.1(f). The filing fee for a civil complaint is
$350.00.1 In this case, while the Clerk has received the complaint, the complaint has not been
filed as plaintiff has neither submitted a complete in forma pauperis application nor paid the
applicable filing fee.
A plaintiff bringing a civil action in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit, including a
statement of all assets, which states that the plaintiff is unable to pay the applicable filing fee.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Where a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
1

On May 1, 2013, the filing fee increased to $350.00 plus a $50.00 administrative fee.
However, as plaintiff filed his complaint prior to May 1, 2013, his filing fee remains $350.00.
Furthermore, the new administrative fee does not apply to a plaintiff who is proceeding in forma
pauperis.
1

dismiss the case if it finds that the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff submitted his own application to proceed in forma pauperis not on a form
designated by the court. (See Dkt. No. 1-1.) However, his application omits much of the
information that is required to be listed on the proper form to decide whether in forma pauperis
status is appropriate. For example, it does not list his or his spouse’s (if any), average monthly
income during the past twelve months, nor does it list plaintiff’s employment history or itemize
plaintiff’s monthly expenses. Therefore, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be
denied without prejudice. The Clerk will be ordered to administratively close this case, but
plaintiff will be permitted to submit a complete in forma pauperis application.
In addition, the court questions whether plaintiff’s claim will ultimately be barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court stated:
that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,
a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance
of a writ of habeas cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A claim for damages
bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that to a
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
cognizable under § 1983.
“[T]he central inquiry [under Heck] is whether the claims asserted by plaintiff would ‘necessarily
imply the invalidity of [his] conviction.’” Leibner v. Borough of Red Bank Police Dep’t, Civ.
No. 12-4104, 2013 WL 1065927, at *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2013) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549
U.S. 384, 398 (2007) (Stevens, J., concurring) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87)); Wade v.

2

Colaner, Civ. No. 06-3715, 2009 WL 776985, at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2009). In this case,
plaintiff admits that the state court found him guilty of the crimes at trial wherein the alleged
fabricated evidence was used. (See Dkt. No. 1 at p. 7.) Thus, plaintiff may have to overcome the
Heck bar to be entitled to relief in this action if, or when, the complaint is filed.
An appropriate order will be entered.

DATED: August 13, 2013

/s/ Freda L. Wolfson
FREDA L. WOLFSON
United States District Judge

3