The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
THE PLAINTIFF PRO SE applies for in-forma-pauperis relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("Application") in this action brought against (1) the governor, public advocate, attorney general, and various commissioners serving the state of New Jersey, and (2) "all members of present [United States] Senate." (Compl., at 1.) The Court will address the Application. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990).
Keefe (1) states that he is "unable to pay the costs of these proceedings" and has "been declared indigent" by a state court, and (2) annexes a state court order, dated April 13, 2006, granting him leave to file papers without prepayment of fees. (App.; id., Ex. A.)
Keefe fails to state if he anticipates receiving money, or if he has (1) savings or anything of value, (2) received money - and if so, the source and amount - in the past 12 months, or (3) received in the past 12 months any pensions, annuities, insurance payments, disability or workers compensation payments, or gifts or inheritances. He also fails to state (1) when he was last employed and his monthly salary, and why he is unemployed now, (2) if he has any dependents, or (3) how he pays his expenses. Thus, his application is incomplete, and inclusion of the state court order does not fill these gaps.
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). It is the plaintiff's burden to "provide the [Court] with the financial information it need[s] to make a determination as to whether he qualifie[s] for in forma pauperis status." Thompson v. Pisano, No. 06-1817, slip op. at 1 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) (dismissing appeal from order denying in-forma-pauperis application, as appellant "despite being informed of . . . deficiency, . . . took no action to rectify it"). If the plaintiff applies again for in-forma-pauperis relief, he should state whether he (1) anticipates receiving money, (2) has savings or anything of value, (3) has received money - and if so, the source and amount - in the past 12 months, (4) has received in the past 12 months any pensions, annuities, insurance payments, disability or workers compensation payments, or gifts or inheritances. He must also state (1) when he was last employed and his monthly salary, and why he is unemployed now, (2) if he has any dependents, and (3) how he pays his expenses.
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). A frivolous complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, as it contains "inarguable legal conclusion[s]" or "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989).
A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A court must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). But a court need not credit a plaintiff's bald assertions or legal conclusions. Id.
Keefe, in the handwritten complaint, alleges that state and federal officials are "controllers" of controlled dangerous substances. (Compl., at 3.) He alleges:
'IF' it was a controlled substance, controller has to be held responsible and liable for plaintiff being detained for being in a so called CDS zone to purchase a CDS alleged.
'IF' it was a controlled substance being purchased, the only way plaintiff could have purchased a CDS is through the controller. Controllers says [sic] we have made laws to control CDS's and have not so since 1953 when CDS laws started being inforced [sic] by the Eisonhower [sic] administration. Controllers have done nothing more then [sic] to create wrongs to wrongly impose a false will and penalize the people. These acts are nothing more to impose penalties so [those] operating these CDS laws get paid. This must and has to be perceived as racketeering #470 of the penal code due to the longevity of these wrongs. It was only 11 years on alcohol. This means our forefathers had alot [sic] more sense back then? It (alcohol) could not be beaten. So, our fathers legalized alcohol, bringing revenue to the state. Not the so called controllers at the cost of the people (plaintiffs).
Computor [sic] age is here. A fee will be charged to register for a CDS. It will be photo I.D. with thumb print or hand print. Upon going to a pharmacy (or whatever) your card will be inserted into a computor [sic], hooked up to a main computor [sic], [and] will tell pharmacist if cardholder is eligable [sic]. Being eligable [sic] by the means of rationing. Or, by ways the state or nation feels how a controlled dangerous substance (?) should be allowed to be used. FREEDOM is more ...