ATLANTIC COUNTY CENTRAL MUNICIPAL COURT INC. v. GERMAN BEY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE ATLANTIC COUNTY CENTRAL |} HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS MUNICIPAL COURT INC.,, ef Plaintiffs, Civil Action No, 24-0105 (KXMW-SAK) TYESAH GERMAN BEY, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. : THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Defendant Tyesah German Bey’s (“Defendant”) filing titled “NOTICE Writ of Error” (ECF No. 4) which the Court gleans as a response to its February 1, 2024 Order (“Order”) denying without prejudice Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (TFP”) application (ECF No. 3); and THE COURT NOTING that Defendant asserts the cases this Court cited in its Order do not apply to her because she is not a prisoner. (ECF No. 4) She also states the “Certification In Lieu of Financial Statement” which she submitted with her IFP application is a “lawful disposition regarding her ability to complete this court matter with resources availed to her.” Ud.) She further states she “has no standing obligation to disclose any of her personal and private information.” (id.); and THE COURT NOTING that Defendant’s “Certification In Lieu of Financial Statement” states that Defendant does “not have money to pay for access to the court.” (ECF No, 1) Defendant further avers that a request for a “financial statement” from her is a violation of the “Bill of Rights[s]” and “Due Process.” (ECF No. 1); and THE COURT NOTING that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a}(1),! a court may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if he or she submits a proper IFP application. Although Section 1915 refers to “prisoners,” federal courts apply Section 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications. See Hickson v. Mauro, No. 11-6304, 2011 WL 6001088 , at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2011) (compiling cases where federal courts have acknowledged Section 1915 applies to nonprisoner applications); and THE COURT NOTING that the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C, § 1915, “is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989), However, proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Shahin vy. Sec’y of Del., 532 F. App’x 123 (d Cir. 2013); Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 , 316 Gd Cir. 2001). Section 1915(a) allows a litigant, including a nonptisoner, to commence a civil action in federal court i# forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, among other things, that he or she is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit, See Neitzke, 490 U.S, at 324. The requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate financial need through submission of a complete financial affidavit is an essential part of the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1); Rey v. Penn Nat. Ins. Co., No. 14-4277, 2014 WL 4104979 , at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) (recognizing that when a non-prisoner seeks permission to file a civil complaint in forma pauperis under Section 1915, the Prison Litigation Reform Act “requires the person to submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets and that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor’). Failure to submit a completed financial affidavit renders an IFP ' Section 1915(a\(1) provides, in pertinent part: [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement ... of any suit... without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of ail assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay [the applicable filing] fee or give security therefor. application incomplete and this defect warrants the application’s denial. See Rohn v. Johnston, 415 F, App’x 353, 355 (3d Cir, 2011) (affirming denial of in forma pauperis status due to prisoner’s failure to submit affidavit of poverty identifying all of his assets and declaration that he was unable to pay the required fees as there was no way for the district court to properly determine prisoner’s eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis); Estate of Robertson v. City of Jersey City, No. 23-835, 2023 WL. 3043638, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2023) (denying IFP application due to plaintiffs’ failure to provide affidavit that fully explains how they support themselves); and THE COURT NOTING that at least one other court in this District has addressed an attempt by litigants to file a submission in lieu of filing an in forma pauperis application. See El Ameen Bey y, Stumpf, 825 F. Supp. 2d 537 (D.N.J. 2011). In #7 Ameen Bey, the Court denied in forma pauperis status to the plaintiffs after they filed a document in lieu of filing an in forma pauperis application which stated, in part, that “[a] demand for a ‘[flinancial statement[]’ is used as an instrument to deny [] due process” and did not provide any indication to the Court about the plaintiffs’ assets. 7d, at 548, 551. In denying the plaintiffs i# forma pauperis status, the Court further stated the following: ... this Court notes its concern with Plaintiffs’ resort to [their submission] instead of a valid IFP application. However, granting Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that Plaintiffs were simply misled... , and their submission of [the form submitted in lieu of an i# forma pauperis application] was not meant to operate as an abuse of the legal system. Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk to serve Plaintiffs with three courtt-authorized blank IFP forms for individuals seeking to file a civil complaint: Plaintiffs will be obligated to complete ‘hese forms in the event they wish to seek [FP status. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiffs to complete these forms with utmost care and diligence .... The Court reminds Plaintiffs that these affidavits will be deemed statements made under penalty of perjury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 ; 18 U.S.C. § 1621 . Finally, the Court takes this opportunity to put Plaintiffs on notice that their submission of another [filing in lieu of an in forma pauperis application] ... will mof aid Plaintiffs in obtaining IFP status; on the contrary, Plaintiffs’ submission of any such document will be construed as mockery of the court and as Plaintiffs’ express refusal to seek IFP status pursuant to the requirements of Section 1915(a)(1), causing the instant proceedings to be conclusively terminated on the grounds of Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action. See Hookey v. Lomas, 438 F. App’x 110 (3d Cir. 2011) (where the plaintiff refused to pay the filing fee or file the required motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the plaintiffs action was dismissed for failure to prosecute); Arsad vy. Gerula, 366 F, App’x 323 (3d Cir, 2010) (same). The Court, therefore, urges Plaintiffs to take this warning seriously. “The courts in this nation stand ready to address challenges brought by litigants in good faith. Which, in turn, means that the judiciary —including the Judges in this District — expect litigants to treat their litigation with utmost seriousness, without abusing legal process and without unduly testing of the resolve... of the judiciary.” Jn re Telfair, 745 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D.N.J. 2010). Id. at 551-52 ; and THE COURT FINDING that it previously reviewed all papers Defendant submitted in connection with her [FP application (ECF No. 1), including the “Certification in Lieu of Financial Statement” and rejected her application on the basis that she did not provide the information required of her in the application for this Court to determine whether she qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Following this Court’s Order, Defendant, to date, has not submitted a complete IFP application. Instead, she challenges this Court’s authority to request financial information from her in connection with her request to proceed in forma pauperis; and THE COURT FURTHER FINDING that it shares concerns similar to those identified by the Court in £/ Ameen Bey with regard to Defendant’s reliance on her “Certification in Lieu of Financial Statement” instead of a valid IFP application. The Court urges Defendant to complete the IFP application fully and candidly if she wishes to proceed with the instant matter in forma pauperis and reminds Defendant that any statements on the IFP application will be deemed made under penalty of perjury. See £7 Ameen Bey, 825 F. Supp. 2d at 552 . Submission of another filing that challenges the authority of this Court to inquire about the financial circumstances of Defendant in connection with a request to proceed in forma pauperis or lists “N/A” in response to all questions on an IFP application will not aid Defendant in obtaining IFP status. This Court will construe those documents as a mockery of the Court, Defendant’s refusal to seek in forma pauperis status pursuant to Section 1915(a)(1), and grounds for this Court to terminate this action for lack of prosecution. See E7 Ameen Bey, 825 F, Supp. 2d at 552. THEREFORE, IT IS this LP day of March, 2024, hereby ORDERED that should Defendant wish for the Court to consider a request to proceed with the instant matter in forma pauperis, she shall file a completed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs by April 5, 2024, with answers to all questions on the application and in a manner that makes clear to the Court how she is supporting herself, If Defendant is being supported by others, she may indicate that fact on her application. She may provide any additional information that would be helpful to the Court in understanding her financial circumstances, Alternatively, should Defendant not wish to seek IFP status, she may proceed with this case by paying the $405 filing fee to the Clerk of Court by April 5, 2024; and it is further ORDERED that should Defendant fail to submit a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee to the Court, this action will be dismissed without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Defendant a copy of this Order by regular U.S, mail. Qu WN ‘KAREN M. WILLIAMS U.S, DISTRICT JUDGE