United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MCNULTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, Cheryl Ackerman, has brought a series of actions
and applications, most in the form of appeals from orders of
the Bankruptcy Court in No. 17-7032. Because of repetitive
filings seeking the same relief, the bankruptcy court entered
an order limiting the filing of new motions. This court's
most recent ruling dismissed a bankruptcy appeal as moot in
light of the court-ordered sale of Ms. Ackerman's
property. (18 cv 8045 DE 34) Now Ms. Ackerman has brought a
civil complaint against the trustee in bankruptcy, David
Wolff, asserting many of the same matters that were the
subject of her bankruptcy appeals. The complaint in this
matter (DE 1) will be dismissed, for two reasons.
Plaintiff has not accomplished service.
complaint was originally filed on July 16, 2018. In forma
pauperis status was granted, and USM 285 forms were sent, on
October 31 and November 1, 2018. (DE 3, 4) The Plaintiff
failed to fill out or return the USM 285 forms so a summons
could be issued and service be accomplished. On December 6,
2018, the court issued an order requiring the plaintiff to
either return the forms or show cause why the action should
not be dismissed. (DE 5)
December 21, 2018, the plaintiff responded with an
application for a 60-day extension of her time to serve the
defendant. (DE 6) On January 4, 2019 (the return date of the
order to show cause), I granted the 60-day extension. (DE 9)
4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that a complaint be served
within 90 days after filing. I entered an order to show cause
why the complaint should not be dismissed. Although Ms.
Ackerman provided no adequate grounds, I nevertheless granted
an additional 60-day extension of the time to serve the
summons and complaint. More than 60 days have elapsed since
January 4, 2019, when I entered the order granting the
I will order that the complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to accomplish service.
The complaint does not state a cognizable claim
court granted in forma pauperis status, permitting the
complaint to be filed without the payment of a fee. The court
is therefore obligated to screen the allegations of the
complaint to determine whether it
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28U.S.C. § 1915(e).
[T]he provisions of § 1915(e) apply to all in forma
pauperis complaints, not simply those filed by prisoners.
See, e.g., Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 n. 19 (3d Cir.2002) (non-prisoner indigent
plaintiffs are "clearly within the scope of §
1915(e)(2)"). See also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2000)(§ 1915(e) ...