# MCCLINE

> District Court, D. New Jersey · July 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11385773

## Case

- **Full name:** Patrick J. McCline, Sr. v. Michael Kelly et al.
- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 7, 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/11385773

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11385773. Public record. Not legal advice.