The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MICHAEL RASHOD HUNTER,
Civil Case No. 26-2517
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
ANGEL VALENTIN et al.
July 7, 2026
Defendants.
SEMPER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Michael Rashod Hunter’s
(“Plaintiff”) filing of a Complaint (ECF 1, “Compl.”) and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF 1-2). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s
application, the Court has decided this matter upon submission, without oral argument, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s application is DENIED.
WHEREAS a district court may allow a plaintiff to commence a civil action without
paying the filing fee—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff submits an affidavit
demonstrating he or she is “unable to pay such fees,” but must dismiss a case that is “frivolous or
malicious,” “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2)(B); and
WHEREAS a litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit,” Hurst
v. Shalk, 659 F. App'x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016), and “bears the burden ‘to provide the Court with
the financial information it needs to make a determination as to whether [they] qualify for IFP
status.” Gray v. GT Auto Sales, No. 25-5982, 2026 WL 63483, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2026) (quoting
Freeman v. Edens, No. 07-1227, 2007 WL 2406789, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2007)); and
WHEREAS this Court has denied IFP applications where plaintiffs state that they are
unemployed, have zero income, assets, or expenses, and do not expect any future income, without
any explanation as to how they subsist. See Gray, 2026 WL 63483, at *1-2 (denying a plaintiff’s
IFP where they “marked zeroes across the board” because the court could not determine his
financial status or how he covered his minimal expenses with no income); Afshar v. Rutgers Univ.,
No. 24-7251, 2024 WL 4476154, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2024) (denying a plaintiff’s IFP application
where “he wrote ‘0’ for every single box, declaring that he has no income, no assets, no savings,
and most implausibly, no expenses,” because the court could not evaluate his “claimed
indigency”); Hedgepeth v. Cap. Health, No. 23-3620, 2023 WL 6579821, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 10,
2023) (denying a plaintiff’s IFP application where he listed that he had “no cash, no bank accounts,
no assets, no income, and no expenses” and failed to “explain how he subsists without paying any
expenses”)); and
WHEREAS Plaintiff lists “0” in every single section of his IFP application, alleging that
he has zero income, assets, expenses, employment history, or future income, (ECF 1-2), and
provides no explanation or additional addendum explaining how he subsists within these economic
conditions.
IT IS, on this 7th day of July 2026,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 1-2) is hereby
DENIED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case; and it is further
ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks to reopen this case, he shall, within thirty (30) days of
the entry of this Order, either (1) submit a renewed IFP application with an addendum explaining
how he subsists given his current financial situation or (2) pay the $405 fee; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and a blank IFP
application (AO 239, Rev. 01/15) upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
/s/ Jamel K. Semper.
Hon. Jamel K. Semper
United States District Judge
Orig: Clerk
cc: Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.
Parties