TRAPP v. PROWN et al
Filing
4
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 10/7/2013. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Shawn TRAPP,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 13-5141
v.
OPINION
David PROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter has come before the Court on the application of pro se Plaintiff Shawn Trapp
(“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entry No. 1, Attach. 2). The Court has
reviewed the affidavit of indigence and the Complaint. (Docket Entry 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
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 $50.00 administrative fee. To avoid paying these fees, a plaintiff may submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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, 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. Dec. 12, 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 (2012) (internal quotations omitted).
It appears from his application that Plaintiff receives monthly unemployment insurance
payments of $490.00 and has no assets. Upon review, the Court believes that Plaintiff has shown
sufficient economic disadvantage 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(e), 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
making this determination, the Court reviews the Complaint under the familiar pleading
standards as reiterated and clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (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 in the Complaint as true and viewing them in the light
2
most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds that the plaintiff has failed to set forth ‘fair notice of
what the . . . 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 his 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, the Court finds the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with
the requisite pleading standards. Plaintiff is seeking custody of his child and notes the child’s
mother is incarcerated. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges “systematic and premeditated
deprivations of fundamental rights . . . by the State of New Jersey.” (Docket Entry No. 1, ¶ 10).
Plaintiff further alleges that “[i]t is a practice and policy by New Jersey . . . [to] break up African
American families and keep the process of ‘Whiteness’ racial hatred, racial profiling, Klu Klux
Klan-liken [sic] activity continuous and alive and well against African Americans.” (Id. at ¶ 11).
The Complaint contains many other conclusory allegations of racial discrimination; however, the
Complaint fails to describe actionable conduct on the part of the Defendants. Without factual
allegations to demonstrate the basis for Plaintiff’s requested relief, Plaintiff has not satisfied the
pleading requirements of Rule 8. In deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, however, and the
possibility that a more detailed statement may reveal legitimate grounds for relief, the Court will
dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and with permission to re-file.
3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, (Docket Entry No. 1, Attach. 2), but will sua sponte dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice, (Docket Entry No. 1). An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
Dated: October 7, 2013
4
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?