Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Golden v. Burlington County Prosecutors Office

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 4, 2015

MARC
v.
GOLDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
BURLINGTON COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Previously, this matter was administratively terminated as plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete. Plaintiff has now submitted the necessary documents to make his in forma pauperis application complete. Therefore, the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this case. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted based on the information provided therein. This case is subject to sua sponte screening by the Court, and the Complaint will be screened in due course.

Therefore, IT IS this 29th day of April, 2015,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this case; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Complaint shall be filed; 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 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 for the State of New Jersey and the warden of the 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 account, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and each payment shall reference the civil docket number of this action.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.