The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHYA BETH,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 25-12408
v.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JUDGE FRANK J. DEANGELIS; JUDGE
JAMES M. DEMARZO; THE COUNTY OF August 25, 2026
SUSSEX; SUSSEX COUNTY
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD;
SUSSEX COUNTY AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD CHAIRMAN,
PETER SOUTHWAY; SUSSEX COUNTY
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD
VICE CHAIRMAN, BRIAN HAUTAU;
JOSEPH D. GREER, ESQ.; SENIOR
PLANNING AIDE OF THE SUSSEX
COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING AND
FARMLAND PRESERVATION
PROGRAM;
RUDY DRAGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
SEMPER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff
Shya Beth (“Plaintiff.”) (ECF 1, “Complaint” or “Compl.”) Plaintiff has not paid the required fee
to have her Complaint filed with the Court, nor has Plaintiff completed an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, litigation in this matter
has not formerly begun.1 Given the considerable length of time Plaintiff has had to properly submit
her claim to this Court, and this Courts inherent authority to manage its own docket,2 the Court
hereby CLOSES this matter, subject to reopening upon the proper submission of an IFP
application or payment of the filing fee.
On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff presented herself to the Court as seeking a writ of habeas
corpus, and accordingly only paid $5 to initiate the present action. (See Compl.) Plaintiff stated
in an August 27, 2025 email to the district court that “[t]he document I filed is a habeas corpus
because of the irreparable harm and violation of my constitutional rights, and it must be recognized
as such.” (See ECF 6 at 18.) In reality, Plaintiff is not seeking a writ of habeas corpus because she
is not challenging any term of confinement. See Wragg v. Ortiz, 462 F. Supp. 3d 476, 498 (D.N.J.
2020) (“The heart of habeas corpus is immediate release or speedier release from confinement.”
(quotations omitted)). Instead, Plaintiff alleges multiple substantive claims against named
Defendants. (See Compl.)
The Clerk of the Court notified Plaintiff that a complaint was submitted rather than a habeas
petition, and therefore the remainder of the filing fee must be paid, or she must submit an IFP
application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF 6 at 16.) Rather than pay the remaining $400 or
submit an IFP application, Plaintiff submitted multiple affidavits to this Court continuing to assert
1 “Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3, the Clerk shall not be required to enter any suit, file any
paper, issue any process, or render any other service for which a fee is prescribed, unless the fee
is paid in advance. Under certain circumstances, however, this Court may permit an indigent
plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.” Hines v. Lanigan, No. 17-2864, 2017 WL 1821100, at *1
(D.N.J. May 5, 2017).
2 It is well-established that district courts possess inherent power to manage its own docket. See
Haagensen v. Pa. State Police, 490 F. App’x 447, 454 (3d Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that
‘inherent power has been frequently invoked by the courts … to provide tools for docket
management.’” (quoting Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 561 (3d Cir.1985))).
substantive claims against the named Defendants. (See ECF Nos. 9, 12, 15-20.) As of the date of
this Order, Plaintiff has not paid the outstanding balance of the filing fee or submitted an IFP
application. No summons have been issued in this matter. Since Plaintiff has had over a year to
address the above-stated deficiencies, and proceedings in this action have not meaningfully begun,
the Court finds it appropriate to formerly close this matter pending completion of the IFP
application or payment of the fee. See Hudson v. McGlynn, No. 24-6729, 2025 WL 262151, at *1
(D.N.J. Jan. 22, 2025) (considering a Complaint withdrawn and closing a case where a plaintiff
did not pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application within 21 days of notice from the Clerk of
the Court). For the reasons stated above:
IT IS on this 25th day of August 2026, hereby
1. ORDERED that Plaintiff is to either (1) pay the remainder of the filing fee ($400), or
(2) submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within fourteen (14) days of this
order, or else Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF 1) will be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and it is further
2. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order and a blank IFP
application, Form AO 239, to Plaintiff by regular mail, and CLOSE this case, to be
reopened only if Plaintiff timely pays the required fee or submits a completed IFP
application; and it is further
3. ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 21) is hereby
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED as unripe, and shall be reinstated only upon
Plaintiff’s proper submission of the filing fee or IFP application.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jamel K. Semper .
HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER
United States District Judge
Orig: Clerk
cc: Andre M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J.
Parties