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. § ("Section") 1915 ("Application") in this action brought against the defendants (1) State of New Jersey, (2) New Jersey Office of the Public Defender ("NJPD"), and (3) E. Seagers, listed as NJPD's "chief officer". (Dkt. entry no. 1, App. & Compl.) The plaintiff is a prolific pro se litigant, having brought eighteen actions in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey since May 2004. He should be well-versed on the proper way to assert federal jurisdiction. See:
Rockefeller v. Twp. of Deptford, No. 04-2475 (FLW); Rockefeller v. Camden County Probation Dep't, No. 04-4826 (RBK);
Rockefeller v. Camden County Probation Dep't, No. 04-5615 (JBS);
Rockefeller v. Vacation Savers, No. 05-211 (RBK); Rockefeller v. Camden County Bd. of Soc. Servs., No. 05-3145 (JBS);
Rockefeller v. Sawyer, No. 05-4550 (RBK); Rockefeller v. Marshall, No. 05-4551 (JHR); Rockefeller v. Harvey, No. 05-4582 (RBK); Rockefeller v. Shaw, No. 05-4585 (JBS);
Rockefeller v. Weal, No. 05-4903 (FLW);
Rockefeller v. Davis, No. 05-4904 (RBK);
Rockefeller v. Haddon Twp. Police Dep't, No. 06-3563 (RMB); Rockefeller v. State of N.J., No. 07-1252 (MLC); Rockefeller v. Boyce, No. 07-1416 (RBK);
Rockefeller v. Camden Mun. Ct., No. 07-1832 (NLH); Rockefeller v. State of N.J., No. 07-1878 (MLC); Rockefeller v. Cesarano, No. 07-2185 (NLH); and Rockefeller v. Byrd, No. 07-2186 (JBS).
The Court will address the Application first. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990).
The plaintiff states in the Application that he owns nothing of value, is unemployed, and receives no money from any source. (App.) But he asserts in the complaint that he is (1) entitled to a 2006 state income tax refund, which suggests that he has income, and (2) "on a fixed income of $862". (Compl., at 1.)
The Court will deny the Application. The plaintiff fails to show entitlement to in-forma-pauperis relief, as his statements are self-contradictory. 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-formapauperis application). The plaintiff is not entitled to relief merely because he brings this action pro se and has expenses. See Schneller v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr., 201 ...