# DEMBY

> District Court, D. New Jersey · March 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11339065

## Case

- **Full name:** Jamor J. Demby v. Victoria L. Kuhn et al
- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** March 13, 2026
- **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/11339065

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11339065. Public record. Not legal advice.