DEMBY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

JAMOR J. DEMBY, HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS

Plaintiff, Civil Action

No. 25-cv-12831 (KMW-MJS)

v. No. 25-cy-13321 (KMW-SAK)

VICTORIA L. KUHN et al, MEMORANDUM ORDER AND

i OPINION

Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Jamor J. Demby’s

(“Plaintiff’) Complaints in No. 25-12831 (ECF No. 1) and 25-13321 (ECF No. 1) (collectively

“Complaints”) and his corresponding Applications to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying

Fees or Costs (collectively “IFP Applications”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and

WHEREAS, having reviewed the applications, this Court finds that Plaintiff has shown

an entitlement to proceed without prepayment of fees, and his applications shall be GRANTED;

and

THE COURT NOTING that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), where

an action has common questions of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions at issue; and

WHEREAS, the Court can consolidate actions sua sponte, Kamdem-Ouafjo v. Task

Memt., No. 18-298, 2018 WL 3360762 at *26 (D.N.J. Jul. 9, 2018).

Here Plaintiff has filed two complaints that are almost identical in fact and law. (See No.

25-12831, ECF No. 1; No. 25-13321, ECF No. 1). In fact, the only significant difference the Court

can glean is that in No. 25-12831, Plaintiff names John Doe as a Defendant (ECF No. 1 at p. 1),

and in No, 25-13321, Plaintiff does not name John Doe, but names six law enforcement officers

instead. (ECF No. f at p. 1). All other facts and law substantively remain the same.

For example, in No. 25-12831, the Facts of the Complaint state:

In the Current case petitioner on 6/17/2025, while in the city of

Camden New Jersey, members the New Jersey state parole board

task force, pulled up alongside of plaintiff, in unmarked cars,

petitioner in fear for his safety began to run for a short distance, until

he heard the words police. Plaintiff stopped immediately. One of the

parole agents continued running toward plaintiff at full speed and

tackled plaintiff to the ground. This officer had ample time to slow

down, but didn't. He tackled plaintiff to the ground and then

threatened to break plaintiff arm if he moved. As a result of this

officers’ actions he caused injury to plaintiffs left knee, left shoulder,

right elbow, and left side of neck, Plaintiff asked to be taken to the

hospital for his injuries. The officers said since you want medical

attention were going to charge you with resisting arrest as retaliation

for seeking medical attention. Plaintiff was taken to west Jersey

Hospital/virtua Hospital for his injuries. In violation of plaintiff's 8"

and 14 Amendment rights of The United States Constitution.

(No. 25-12831, ECF No. 1 at p. 1-2) (emphasis in original).

In comparison, in No. 25-13321, the Facts of the Complaint state:

In the Current case petitioner on 6/17/2025, while in the city of

Camden New Jersey, members the New Jersey state parole board

task force, TFO West, Senior Parole Officer James Martine, Michael

Gallagher, Officer Dana Orlando, Jonathan Sierputowski, Page 1 of

8 I Case 1:25-cv-13321-KMW-SAK Document 1 Filed 07/14/25

Page | of 9 PagelD: | pulled up alongside of plaintiff, in unmarked

cars, petitioner in fear for his safety began to run for a short distance,

until he heard the words police. Plaintiff stopped immediately, One

of the parole agents continued running toward plaintiff at .. full

speed and tackled plaintiff to the ground. This officer had ample

time to slow down, but didn't, He tackled plaintiff to the ground and

then threatened to break plaintiff arm if he moved. As a result of this

officers’ actions he cause~ injury to plaintiffs I~ft knee, left

shoulder, right elbow, and left side of neck, and left hand Middl~

finger. Plaintiff asked to be taken to the hospital for his injuries. The

officers said since you want medical attention were going to charge

you with resisting arrest as retaliation for secking medical attention.

Plaintiff was taken to west Jersey Hospital/virtua Hospital for his

injuries. In violation of plaintiff's 8 and 14 Amendment rights

of The United States Constitution.

(No, 25-13321, ECF No. 1 at p. 1-2) (emphasis in original),

Plaintiff's legal argument section of both Complaints are likewise similar as illustrated

above. (See No. 25-12831, ECF No. 1 at p. 2-3; No, 25-13321, ECF No. | at p. 2-3); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Complaints were deemed Withdrawn for failure to pay the filing

fee or file an IFP Application in August 2025 and the Court Ordered that “upon the payment of

the filing fee or the submission of a completed, signed application to proceed in forma pauperis,

Plaintiff may move to reopen this matter,” (No. 25-12831, ECF No. 4 at p.1; No. 25-13321, ECF

No. 4 at p. 1); and

THE COURT NOTING that Plaintiff has filed IFP Applications’ in both cases but has

not moved to reopen either matter.

IT IS HEREBY on this if May of March, 2026 ORDERED

A. Plaintiff's Applications in both actions No. 25-cv-12831 (ECF Nos. 6 and 8),

and No, 25-cy-13321 (ECF No. 6) are GRANTED

B. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and for purposes of account deduction only, the

Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order by regular mail upon the Attorney General

for the State of New Jersey and the warden of the Camden County Correctional

Facility

C, On each case (No. 25-cv-12831 and No. 25-cv-13321) Plaintiff is assessed a filing

fee of $350.00 and shall pay the entire filing fee in the manner set forth in this Order

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), regardiess of the outcome of the

! Plaintiff filed an IFP Application in in No. 25-1283! on September 2, 2025 (ECF No. 6) as well as on October 27,

2025 (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff filed an IFP Application in No. 25-13321 on December 9, 2025 (ECF No. 6).

litigation, meaning that if the Court dismisses the case as a result of its sua sponte

screening, or Plaintiff’s case is otherwise administratively terminated or closed, §

1915 does not suspend installment payments of the filing fee or permit refund to

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

Dd. Pursuant to Bruce v. Samuels, 136 8S. Ct. 627, 632 (2016), if Plaintiff owes fees for

more than one court case, whether to a district or appellate court, under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provision governing the mandatory recoupment of

filing fees, Plaintiffs monthly income is subject to a simultaneous, cumulative 20%

deduction for each case a court has mandated a deduction under the PLRA; □□□□

Plaintiff would be subject to a 40% deduction if there are two such cases, a 60%

deduction if there are three such cases, etc., until all fees have been paid in full

E. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), in each month that the amount in Plaintiff's

account exceeds $10.00, the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall assess, deduct

from Plaintiff's account, and forward to the Clerk of the Court payment equal to

20% of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff's account, in accordance

with Bruce, until the $350.00 filing fee is paid. Each payment shall reference the

civil docket numbers of the actions to which the payment should be credited

F. Actions No, 25-cv-12831, No. 25-cv-13321 shall be consolidated for all purposes

G. All filings in the consolidated action shall be made in No, 25-cv-12831 docket

H. Plaintiff must move to reopen No, 25-cy-12831 and No. 25-cv-13321 within thirty

(30) days of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, otherwise both cases may be

terminated without leave to amend

L The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular

U.S. mail.

oN

KAREN M. WILLIAMS

United States District Judge