United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Todd Dorn, South Woods State Prison Bridgeton, N.J. Plaintiff Pro se
OPINION and ORDER
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Todd Dorn, an inmate currently confined at South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submits an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis and grants leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This case is subject to sua sponte screening by the Court, and the Complaint will be screened in due course. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
IT IS therefore on this 30th day of _April__, 2015,
ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that SUMMONS SHALL NOT ISSUE, at this time, as the Court's sua sponte screening has not yet been completed; and it is further
ORDERED that that the time to serve process under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) is hereby extended to the date 120 days after the Court permits the Complaint to proceed; and it is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and for purposes of account deduction only, the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order by regular mail upon the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the warden of South Woods State Prison; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is assessed a filing fee of $350.00 and shall pay the entire filing fee in the manner set forth in this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), regardless of the outcome of the litigation, meaning that if the Court dismisses the case as a result of its sua sponte screening, or Plaintiff's case is otherwise administratively terminated or closed, § 1915 does not suspend installment payments of the filing fee or permit refund to the prisoner of the filing fee, or any part of it, that has already been paid; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Siluk v. Merwin, No. 11-3996, 2015 WL 1600236 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2015) (precedential), if Plaintiff owes fees for more than one court case, whether to a district or appellate court, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provision governing the mandatory recoupment of filing fees, Plaintiff's monthly income is subject to a single, monthly 20% deduction, "and the cases and/or appeals that an inmate has filed [sha]ll be paid off sequentially, " Siluk, 2015 WL 1600236 at *3 (emphasis in original); i.e., the first-filed case shall be paid off in full, then the second-filed case, etc., until all fees have been paid in full; and it is further
ORDERED that, with respect to this case, when Plaintiff's fees become ripe for payment in accordance with Siluk, in each month that the amount in Plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the $350.00 filing fee is paid, the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall assess, deduct from Plaintiff's account, and forward to the Clerk of the Court payment equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's ...