Opinion
Civ. No. 15-1856 (AET)
08-18-2015
HASSAN REID and TRACY PORTALATIN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM ORDER
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court upon the application of pro se Plaintiffs Hasan Reid (a prisoner) and Tracy Portalatin (a non-prisoner) to proceed in forma pauperis and assert 42 U.S.C § 1983 claims stemming from an arrest. (ECF No. 1.)
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 establishes financial requirements for both prisoners and non-prisoners who seek to bring a civil action in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Hickson v. Mauro, No. 11-6304 NLH, 2011 WL 6001088, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2011); Glenn v. Hayman, No. 07-112 (PGS), 2007 WL 432974, at *7 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2007). Prisoners must file an affidavit of indigence and submit their prison account statement for the six-months preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Non-prisoners must file an application to proceed in forma pauperis and include an affidavit of indigence that states the individual's total income, all assets, and her inability to pay filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Glenn, 2007 WL 432974, at *7. Here, Plaintiffs' present application to proceed in forma pauperis is incomplete because Plaintiff Portalatin has not submitted an in forma pauperis application with an affidavit of indigence. Accordingly,
IT IS, on this 18th day of August, 2015
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and it is
The Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to file an application to re-open within 30 days if they can submit a complete in forma pauperis application. If Plaintiffs wish to re-open the case, they shall so notify the Court in writing addressed to the Clerk of Court, Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey, 08608 and include either a complete in forma pauperis application (containing all required affidavits and statements from both Plaintiffs) or the required filing fees.
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court administratively terminate this action without filing the complaint or assessing a filing fee.
An administrative termination is not a "dismissal" for purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is reopened it is not subject to the statute of limitations bar if it was originally filed timely. See Papotto v. Harford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275-76 (3d Cir. 2013) (distinguishing administrative terminations from dismissals). --------
/s/ Anne E . Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.