Opinion

FATA v. BAYONNE NEW JERSEY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Court
District Court, D. New Jersey
Filed
Feb 19, 2025
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Chambers of Martin Luther King Jr. Federal

André M. Espinosa Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse

United States Magistrate Judge 50 Walnut Street, Room 2037

Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 645-3827

February 19, 2025

To: Abrahim Fata, Pro Se

193200

Lehigh County Jail

38 North 4th Street

Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102

All counsel of record

LETTER OPINION AND ORDER

RE: Abrahim Fata v. Bayonne New Jersey Board of Education, et al.

Civil Action No. 24-9258 (CCC)(AME)

Dear Litigants:

The Court has reviewed the November 13, 2024 letter filed by Plaintiff pro se Abrahim

Fata (“Plaintiff”), entitled “Motion to Commence” [D.E. 9]; as well as Plaintiff’s December 17,

2024 letter, entitled “Notice to Produce Documents” [D.E. 10]; Plaintiff’s December 26, 2024

letter, requesting production of documents and the status of various cases he has filed [D.E. 11];

Plaintiff’s December 31, 2024 letter, entitled “Motion to Compel Discovery Response” [D.E. 12];

and Plaintiff’s January 12, 2025 request for summons [D.E. 13].

By way of background, the Court received the Complaint on or about September 17, 2024.

[D.E. 1]. The Court received Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on or around

October 29, 2024. [D.E. 8]. That motion remains pending.

For various reasons, Plaintiff’s discovery-related requests, request to commence

proceedings, and request for summons must be DENIED as premature. At a minimum, the Court

must first decide whether to grant Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application before the case,

summons, or any discovery may proceed. Then, even if such request to proceed in forma pauperis

is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must still screen the Complaint before the case

may move forward. See, e.g., Watson v. Berryhill, No. 18-01019, 2018 WL 4016300, at *1 (D.

Nev. Aug. 21, 2018) (explaining that “[a]fter granting a request to proceed IFP pursuant to § 1915,

federal courts must screen a complaint and any amended complaints before allowing a case to

move forward, issuing summonses, and requiring a responsive pleading.”).

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s various discovery-

related requests, request for summons, and request to commence are DENIED without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of

record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ André M. Espinosa

ANDRÉ M. ESPINOSA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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.