United States District Court, D. New Jersey
NOVACK, APPEARING PRO SE, NISAN NOVACK, APPEARING PRO SE,
HELIDA NOVACK, APPEARING PRO SE
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiffs Stuart Novack, Nisan Novack, and Helida Novack,
appearing pro se, filed a complaint on November 16, 2016
against Defendant Burlington County College; and
Plaintiffs claim they were subject to “age
discrimination, ” “handicap discrimination,
” and “religious discrimination”; and
Plaintiffs have filed an application to proceed without
prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or
“IFP” application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), a court may allow a litigant to proceed
without prepayment of fees if he submits a proper IFP
although § 1915 refers to “prisoners, ”
federal courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP
applications, Hickson v. Mauro, No. 11-6304, 2011 WL
6001088, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2011) (citing Lister v.
Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir.
2005)); Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312 (“Section
1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and
not just to prisoners.”); and
the screening provisions of the IFP statute require a federal
court to dismiss an action sua sponte if, among other things,
the action is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to
comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v.
Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin
v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, No. 17-3129,
2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017) (“Federal
law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint
for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any
claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss
any defendant who is immune from suit.”); and
pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and all
reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant,
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro
se litigants “must still plead the essential elements
of [their] claim and [are] not excused from conforming to the
standard rules of civil procedure, ” McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e
have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil
litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by
those who proceed without counsel.”); Sykes v.
Blockbuster Video, 205 F. App'x 961, 963 (3d Cir.
2006) (finding that pro se plaintiffs are expected to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); and
Plaintiffs have not proffered any facts or allegations
regarding the basis for their complaint, apart from stating
the events occurred from September 2012 to present at
Burlington County College, see generally Baldwin Cty.
Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-50 n.3 (1984)
(“Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
require a claimant to set forth an intricately detailed
description of the asserted basis for relief, they do require
that the pleadings ‘give defendant fair notice of what
the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957))); and
Plaintiffs have further not stated how they were injured nor
requested any particular relief from this Court, see
id.; and WHEREAS the Court therefore finds
Plaintiffs' complaint is deficient; and
IT IS on this 6th day of February, 2018
that Plaintiffs' IFP application (Docket No. 1-2) is
hereby GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to
file Plaintiffs' complaint; and it is further
that Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE in its entirety; and it is further
that Plaintiffs may move to reopen their case within twenty
days from the date of this Order, attaching to any such
motion a proposed amended complaint which addresses the
deficiencies of the original complaint as described herein;
and it ...