HOPKINS v. ANTIPIN et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 8/5/2014. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 14-3421
Nicholas ANTIPIN, FANNIE MAE, and
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,
This matter has come before the Court on the application of pro se Plaintiff Douglas
Hopkins (“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entry No. 1). 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
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 for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Id .
1. Application to proceed in forma pauperis
To avoid paying court 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). A litigant need not be “absolutely destitute” to qualify. Mack v. Curran, 457 F. App'x
141, 144 (3d Cir.2012).
It appears from his application that Plaintiff has a gross monthly income of $998.25 and a
daughter who relies on him for support. Upon review, the Court believes that Plaintiff has
shown sufficient economic disadvantage to persuade the Court to permit him to proceed in forma
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Court v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Under these tenants, “[d]ismissal is appropriate where, accepting all wellpleaded allegations in the Complaint as true and viewing them in the light 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, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (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. Plaintiff’s Complain contains the following claims
EMERGENT MOTION TO STAY FANNIE MAE SALE OF DOMESTIC NJ
MOTION FOR COURT SUPERVISED CONTINUENCE [sic] OF STAY TO
INSURE NJAG, FHFA, & FANNIE MAE PENDING INVESTIGATIONS OF
SALE AND FOPRECLOSURE [sic] PROCEEDINGS
MOTION FOR COURT TO MONITOR ORDERLY CONDUCT of PRESENT
FANNIE MAE, FHFA, NJAG INVESTIGATIONS UNDERWAY ON THIS
SALE, & US CONGRESS RESOLUTION OF NATIONAL FORECLOSURE
SALE POLICY AS APPLICABLE TO THIS SALE, OR AS THE PARTIES
MAY RESOLVE THE MATTER
(Docket Entry No. 1 at 3).
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has failed to answer the Court’s order to show cause as
to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docket Entry
No. 3). Plaintiff’s has submitted a factual overview of the circumstances surrounding the sale of
his house and his divorce; however, these factual allegations do not demonstrate a basis for
Plaintiffs' requested relief. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to provide any legal basis for his
requested relief. Plaintiff simply 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 Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice and with permission to re-file.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis, (Docket Entry No. 1), 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.
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?