COX et al v. MICHAELSON et al

Filing 2

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 9/26/2013. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Crystal L. COX, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Civ. No. 13-3136

v.

OPINION

Peter L. MICHAELSON, et al.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter has come before the Court on the application of pro se Plaintiff Crystal L.
Cox (“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 1, Atts. 2 & 3). The Court has
reviewed the affidavit of indigence and the Complaint. (Doc. No. 1). Although the Court will
grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the applicable pleading standards.
DISCUSSION
In considering applications to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court engages in a two-step
analysis. Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). First, the Court determines
whether the plaintiff is eligible to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Id. Second, the Court
determines whether the Complaint should be dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See id.
1. Application to proceed in forma pauperis
The filing fee for a civil case in the United States District of New Jersey is $350.00, with
an additional $50 Administrative Fee per the Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. To avoid paying the
fee, a plaintiff may submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1

1915. “In making such application, a plaintiff must state the facts concerning his or her poverty
with some degree of particularity, definiteness or certainty.” Simon v. Mercer Cnty. Comm.
College, Civ. No. 10-5505, 2011 WL 551196, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb 9, 2011) (citing United States ex
rel. Roberts v. Pennsylvania, 312 F. Supp. 1, 2 (E.D. Pa. 1969)). A litigant need not be
“absolutely destitute” to qualify. Mack v. Curran, 457 F. App'x 141, 144 (3d Cir. 2012) cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 139 (U.S. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).
In her application, Plaintiff states that she has a gross monthly income of $2000, that she
has a $2.5 million dollar judgment against her, and that she has other debts amounting to more
than $300,000. Her monthly expenses appear to exceed her monthly income by an amount of at
least $850. Upon review, the Court believes that Plaintiff has pled her circumstances with
sufficient particularity and has shown sufficient economic disadvantage so as to persuade the
Court to permit her to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Having granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must
screen the Complaint to determine whether dismissal is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). Under § 1915(a), the Court shall sua sponte dismiss any claims that are “(1) . . .
frivolous or malicious; (2) fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seek[]
monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In
reaching this determination, the Court reviews the Complaint under the familiar pleading
standards as reiterated and clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Bell
Atlantic Court v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Under these tenants, “[d]ismissal is appropriate
where, accepting all well-pleaded allegations . . . as true and viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds that plaintiff has failed to set forth ‘fair notice of what the

2

. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Simon, 2011 WL 551196 at *1 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Any asserted claims must also be supported by “a short and plain
statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Finally,
as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must be mindful to construe the complaint liberally in
her favor. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42
(3d Cir. 1992).
Upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds that it must be dismissed for failure to
comply with the requisite pleading standards. At 153 pages, Plaintiff’s Complaint is sprawling
and incomprehensible. In what can only be characterized as a barrage of allegations and
accusations, the Court cannot discern to which parties the individual claims are directed and on
what basis the claims are brought. Such prolific and scattered pleading both fails to set forth fair
notice of Plaintiff’s claims and gives the impression of frivolity and maliciousness, factors
weighing in favor of dismissal. However, in deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status and to the
possibility that a more concise statement may reveal legitimate grounds for relief, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and grant Plaintiff permission to re-file.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, (Doc. No. 1, Atts. 2 & 3), but will sua sponte dismiss the Complaint without prejudice,
(Doc. No. 1). An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

/s/Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
Dated: September 26, 2013

3