Opinion

BROWN v. WARREN

Court
District Court, D. New Jersey
Filed
Jun 30, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.2%

collecting cases and explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over, and can re-open, administratively closed cases

How later courts described this case

  • collecting cases and explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over, and can re-open, administratively closed cases

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________

:

SHAWN ARCHIE, SR., et al., :

:

Plaintiffs, : Civ. No. 20-7907 (NLH) (KMW)

:

v. : OPINION

:

:

RICHARD SMITH, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

______________________________:

APPEARANCES:

Shawn Archie, Sr., 87535

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Raymond Lamar Brown, 48657

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Kamal Martin, 49263

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Phillip Gault, Jr., 21823

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Jeffrey Paglione, 88166

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

John Clark, 42592

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Desmond Rodgers, 87862

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Todd Ford, Jr., 61921

Cumberland County Jail

54 W. Broad St.

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Plaintiffs Pro se

HILLMAN, District Judge

Plaintiffs are a group of inmates presently incarcerated at

the Cumberland County Jail in Bridgeton, New Jersey, proposing

to file a class action regarding the conditions of their

confinement in light of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. ECF

No. 1.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3, the Clerk shall not be

required to enter any suit, file any paper, issue any process,

or render any other service for which a fee is prescribed,

unless the fee is paid in advance. Under certain circumstances,

however, this Court may permit an indigent plaintiff to proceed

in forma pauperis.

The entire fee to be paid in advance of filing a civil

complaint is $400. That fee includes a filing fee of $350 plus

an administrative fee of $50, for a total of $400. A prisoner

who is granted in forma pauperis status will, instead, be

assessed a filing fee of $350 and will not be responsible for

the $50 administrative fee. A prisoner who is denied in forma

pauperis status must pay the full $400, including the $350

filing fee and the $50 administrative fee, before the complaint

will be filed.

Title 28, section 1915 of the United States Code

establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who are

attempting to bring a civil action in forma pauperis. Under §

1915, a prisoner seeking to bring a civil action in forma

pauperis must submit an affidavit, including a statement of all

assets and liabilities, which states that the prisoner is unable

to pay the fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The prisoner also must

submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account

statement(s) for the six-month period immediately preceding the

filing of his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The prisoner

must obtain this certified statement from the appropriate

official of each correctional facility at which he was or is

confined during such six-month period. Id.

If the prisoner is granted in forma pauperis status, the

prisoner must pay the full amount of the filing fee, in

installments, as follows. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). In each

month that the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00,

until the filing fee is paid, the agency having custody of the

prisoner shall assess, deduct from the prisoner’s account, and

forward to the Clerk of the Court an installment payment equal

to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the

prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiffs may not have known when they submitted this

Complaint that they must pay the filing fee, and that even if

the full filing fee, or any part of it, has been paid, the Court

must dismiss the case if it finds that the action: (1) is

frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) (in forma pauperis actions). See also 28 U.S.C. §

1915A (dismissal of actions in which prisoner seeks redress from

a governmental defendant). If the Court dismisses the case for

any of these reasons, § 1915 does not suspend installment

payments of the filing fee or permit the prisoner to get back

the filing fee, or any part of it, that has already been paid.

If the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while

incarcerated, brought in federal court an action or appeal that

was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or malicious,

or that it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, he cannot bring another action in forma pauperis unless

he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires “each prisoner to

pay a full fee” when multiple prisoners are plaintiffs. Hagan

v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146, 155 (3d Cir. 2009). None of the named

plaintiffs have submitted the filing fee or in forma pauperis

applications. The Court will instruct the Clerk send Plaintiffs

in forma pauperis applications. All plaintiffs must complete

the applications and submit certified account statements.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will

be ordered to administratively terminate this action, without

filing the Complaint or assessing a filing fee.1 The Clerk will

be directed to reopen the matter once Plaintiffs submit a new

application or pay the filing fee.

An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: June 30, 2020 s/ Noel L. Hillman

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

1 Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for

purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is re-

opened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is

not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was

originally submitted timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc.

Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases

and explaining that a District Court retains jurisdiction over,

and can re-open, administratively closed cases).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.