# FATA v. BAYONNE NEW JERSEY BOARD OF EDUCATION

> District Court, D. New Jersey · February 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803470

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** February 19, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803470

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10803470. Public record. Not legal advice.