HARRIS v. BUREAU OF PAROLE CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 7 Motion to Reopen Case and Denying Application to proceed in forma pauperis; if Plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, he shall so notify the Court, in writing, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 2/15/2017. (km)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GOLDA D. HARRIS,
Civil Action No. 16-0291 (PGS)
Plaintiff,

v.

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BUREAU OF PAROLE CORRECTIONS,
et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Golda D. Harris, a prisoner currently confined at the Edna Mahan Correctional
Facility in Clinton, New Jersey, seeks to bring this civil action in/örmapauperis (“IFP”), without
prepayment of fees or security, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The Court denied

Plaintiff’s previous two IFP applications, for her failure to submit a six-month prison account
statement certified by an authorized prison official as required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. ECF Nos. 2

& 5. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen and her third IFP application. ECF
Nos. 6 & 7.
Plaintiff once again fails to submit a proper six-month account statement.

Although

Plaintiff now has submitted a prison account statement that is certified by a prison official, the
statement covers the period between July 1, 2016 and January 25, 2017, see ECF No. 6 at 7, but
the Complaint was filed on January 15, 2016. This does not satisfy the statutory requirement that
the account statement must cover the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
Complaint, i.e. in this matter, from July 15, 2015 to January 15, 2016. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2);

Nicholas v. Corbeti, 254 F. App’x 117, 118 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[The IFP statutej governs only the
circumstances under which a prisoner may ‘bring’ a civil action informa pauperis, which means

that its impact must be assessed at the time a prisoner files his or her complaint.”). Indeed, this is
a requirement the Court noted in its very first order denying IFP. See ECF No. 2 at 2. As such,
Plaintiffs third IFP application is again improper.
ITlSthereforeonthis

/

,2017,

dayof

ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is hereby
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to reopen, ECF No. 7, is hereby DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, he shall so notify the Court, in

writing, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order; Plaintiffs writing shall include
either (1) a complete, signed injörmapauperis application, including a proper certified six-month
account statement, or (2) the $400 fee including the $350 filing fee plus the $50 administrative
fee; it is further
ORDERED that upon receipt of a writing from Plaintiff stating that he wishes to reopen
this case, and payment of the filing and administrative fees within the time allotted by this Court,
the Clerk will be directed to reopen this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail.

Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.

2