The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
THIS MATTER ARISES on the in-forma-pauperis application of the plaintiff pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ("Section") 1915. This is an action against defendants listed as (1) "Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J., and Chambers et als," (2) "John (Doe) Fictitious Last Name, Law Clerk," and a similar "Jane Doe," (3) "Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.M.J., and Chambers et als," and (4) "WolfBlock, attorneys at law, Anthony Juliano, individually, Ousmane D. Al-Misri, attorney at law, Cozen OC'Connor - attorneys at law, [and] Evan B. Caplan, individually" (hereinafter, "Attorney Defendants"). (Compl., at 1.) The Court will address the application before reviewing the complaint's sufficiency. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990).*fn1
I. Allegations In Support
The plaintiff has filled out neither a form issued by the District of New Jersey nor a similar form. Instead, he states:
I am a disabled veteran 100% total disability service connected since March of 1996, I have been divorced for well over 15 years. I am not employed full time nor am I engaged in any meaningful gainful employment. I do not expect any major changes to my monthly income or expenses. Because of my poverty I have no assets, checking or savings accounts, nor do I own or possess any real estate. My liabilities includes a rental in the amount of $900.00 per month, I have an outstanding student loan, and medical bills, utilities, food, medication and other related bills. Because of my injury, coronary artery (triple by-pass) disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes I am 100% permanent disabled as rated by the Veterans Administration. (App., at 2 (as stated in original).) But he fails to state if he (1) received any money - and if so, the source and amount - in the past 12 months, (2) anticipates receiving money in the future, or (3) received in the past 12 months any (a) pensions, annuities, or insurance payments, (b) disability or workers compensation payments, or (c) gifts or inheritances. He also fails to state (1) when he was last employed and his monthly salary, (2) if any persons are dependent on him for support, or (3) how he is able to pay his rent and bills. Thus, his application is incomplete.
The Court will deny the application because the plaintiff fails to show entitlement to in-forma-pauperis relief. See Spence v. Cmty. Life Improv., No. 03-3406, 2003 WL 21500007, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2003); Daniels v. County of Media, No. 03-377, 2003 WL 21294910, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2003); White v. Carollo, No. 01-4553, 2001 WL 1159845, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2001). The Court notes that in a different action, the plaintiff's application for in-forma-pauperis relief - which contained the same statement presented here - was denied as being incomplete. (See Thompson v. Passaic County Cmty. Coll., Dkt. No. 05-4232 (DMC), 8-26-05 App., at 2; id., 9-26-05 Order.)
The Court may (1) review the complaint, and (2) direct sua sponte that it not be filed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see King v. E. Lampeter Twp., No. 02-2122, 2003 WL 21523249, at *1-*2 (3d Cir. July 2, 2003); Mariani v. United States, 212 F.3d 761, 769 (3d Cir. 2000). The complaint - consisting of 60 pages - appears to allege that the defendants engaged in misconduct in an action brought by the plaintiff in the Newark Vicinage of the District of New Jersey, Thompson v. Eva's Village & Sheltering Program, Dkt. No. 04-2548 (JAP) ("Eva's Village").
The plaintiff filed therein a 54-page complaint, alleging his constitutional rights were violated in a drug-treatment program. (See Eva's Vill. Compl.) The Attorney Defendants represented the defendants in, and Judge Pisano and Magistrate Judge Arleo were assigned to, Eva's Village. (See Dkt. No. 04-2548 (JAP).)
Magistrate Judge Arleo denied the plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment by default against the defendants in October 2004. (Id., dkt. entry no. 15.) The plaintiff then moved for Magistrate Judge Arleo's recusal; the ...