KOUTSOGIANNIS v. OCEAN COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM ORDER that the Application for In Forma Pauperis is Denied; ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, he shall so notify the Court, in writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court, Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Room 2020, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order;. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 1/26/2016. (kas, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
VASILIO KOUTSOGIANNIS,
Civil Action No. 15-8331 (MAS)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
OCEAN COUNTY DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Vasilio Koutsogiannis, a prisoner currently confined at the South Woods State
Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, seeks to bring this civil action informa pauperis ("IFP"), without
prepayment of fees or security, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court
previously denied Plaintiffs initial IFP application, due to his failure to submit a proper six-month
account statement. (See Order 2, Dec. 2, 2015, ECF No. 2.) Presently before the Court is
Plaintiffs second IFP application.
In the Court's previous order, the Court informed Plaintiff that "Plaintiff [is] required to
s~b~it ~ ~ccount statement dating from April 25, 2015 to October 25, 2015[,]" based on the fact
that the Complaint was dated October 26, 2015. (Id); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (a prisoner
seeking in forma pauperis status shall "submit a certified copy of the trust fund statement ... for
the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint"). In the
instcint application, Plaintiff submitted an account statement dating from July 6, 2015 to January
6, 2016, (see PI.'s Second Appl. 7, ECF No. 5), which neither satisfies the statutory requirement
nor complies with the Court's previous order. Nevertheless, regardless of the procedural defects,
the account statement also shows that in the six-month period addressed by the statement, Plaintiff
received an income of $1,341.60, mostly from outside sources, which Plaintiff admits are from his
!~
f~ily.
I
t
[
(Id at 3.) This amounts to an income of $223.60 per month.
It;i Shahin v. Sec. of Del., 532 F. App'x 123, 124 (3d Cir. 2013), the Third Circuit upheld
· ari IFP denial by the district court, even when the plaintiff showed that she only had a monthly
income of $95 fr?m self-employment. Because the plaintiff was provided, by her husband, "with
food, clothing, shelter, paying her medical and travel expenses and even her business losses," the
· l'ip~d ~frcuit reasoned, "requiring [plaintiff] to pay her own litigation expenses, although requiring
,her .to save for several months, would not deprive her of the 'necessities of life."'
Id Here,
Plaintiffs income is more than twice of the $95/month threshold established in Shahin, and
Plaintiff is also similarly situated in that he has his food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses
,pri:id; for~ by the prison.
Although the Court understands that Plaintiff may need some money for
rii1ri6r·n~ce·ssities' such as toiletries, (see Pl.'s Second Appl. 3), Plaintiff does not need $223.60 a
month for such expenses. Like the plaintiff in Shahin, Plaintiff may have to save up for two or
three months in order to pay the filing fee, but such requirement "would not deprive [him] of the
',,,
',,
i
'11ecessitfos of life."' 532 F. App'x at 124.
·'rfis therefore on this
•.2_/;
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?