MCCLINE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PATRICK J. McCLINE, SR., Civil Action No. 26-2918

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

MICHAEL KELLY et al., July 7, 2026

Defendants.

SEMPER, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Patrick McCline’s

(“Plaintiff”) filing of a complaint (ECF 1, “Complaint” or “Compl.”) and an application to proceed

in forma pauperis (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 filing fees—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff demonstrates that he or she

is “unable to pay such fees,” but must dismiss a case that is frivolous, “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 “District Court has discretion to determine whether to grant IFP”

applications. In re Kellam, 628 F. App’x 85 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436

F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971)); 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)); see also Simon

v. Mercer Cnty. Comm. College, No. 10-5505, 2011 WL 551196, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2011)) (“a

plaintiff must state the facts concerning his or her poverty with some degree of particularity,

definiteness or certainty”); 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 apart from indicating that he was employed at “Fresh Cuts” for 2 days, (ECF

1-2 at 2), noting that he is homeless, “possibly sentenced to jail,” and that his legal residence is in

Margate, NJ in Sections 11 and 12, (id. at 5), Plaintiff entered a zero or “N.A.” in each remaining

portion of his IFP application. (See generally id.); and

WHEREAS this Court has also denied IFP applications where plaintiffs provide

inconsistent information. See Devivo v. O’Hearn, No. 25-16057, 2025 WL 2977823, at *2 (D.N.J.

Oct. 22, 2025) (denying a plaintiff’s IFP application where a significant portion was “internally

inconsistent,” because, for example, the plaintiff listed $1,200 in mortgage payments, $250 in

monthly food expenses, and $300 in monthly transportation expenses, yet also wrote that they paid

“0$” in total monthly expenses); Izzo v. Somerset Cnty. Prosecutor’s Off., No. 25-2136, 2025 WL

1043435, at *3 (D.N.J. April 8, 2025) (denying a plaintiff’s inconsistent IFP application, where,

for example he listed a short period of employment with Uber in one section while indicating a

lack of employment history in another); Johnson-El v. Olivia, No. 24-9460, 2024 WL 5107362, at

*2 (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2024) (denying a plaintiff’s inconsistent IFP application where he claimed his

average monthly income was $20,000 and total monthly income was $3,600 during the same time

period); and

WHEREAS Plaintiff’s IFP application provides contradictory information about his place

of residence. The Complaint indicates that Plaintiff resides at “111 N. Barclay Ave.” in Margate,

Atlantic County, New Jersey, (Compl. at 1), Section 11 of his IFP application indicates that he is

homeless, and Section 12 indicates he maintains a legal residence in Margate, NJ. (ECF 1-2 at 5);

see Thomas v. Bumb, No. 24-1046, 2024 WL 816068, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2024) (denying the

plaintiff’s IFP application where he cited homelessness as a reason for indigency but also listed a

home address on the front page of his complaint).

Accordingly, IT IS on this 7th day of July, 2026,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without

prejudice; and it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to either (1) file an updated IFP

application correcting the deficiencies the Court notes above or (2) remit the $405 filing fee

(including a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee); and it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and a blank IFP

application to Plaintiff by certified mail.

/s/ Jamel K. Semper .

HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER

United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk

cc: Jose R. Almonte, U.S.M.J.

Parties