Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Hunt v. McNulty

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 13, 2019

BENNIE N. HUNT, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE KEVIN MCNULTY and JUDGE JAMES B. CLARK, Defendants.

          BENNIE N. HUNT, JR. APPEARING PRO SE.

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This case concerns a claim of “aiding and abetting” by pro se Plaintiff Bennie N. Hunt, Jr. against two federal judges, the Honorables Kevin McNulty and James B. Clark. This matter is before the Court because Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court must screen this complaint before allowing the case to proceed. This Court will grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, but will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         This Court takes it facts from Plaintiff's Complaint filed on May 7, 2019 as well as from the previous complaint filed in another federal matter. Plaintiff has named two putative Defendants: Judge Kevin McNulty and Magistrate Judge James B. Clark, III. At its core, it appears Plaintiff is unhappy with “THE JUDGES['] DECISIONS TO DISMISS CASE & CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE V.A.'S”.[1] (Pl.'s Compl. 1.) The decision Plaintiff complains about here occurred in a matter found at 2:18-cv-12249, which was initiated on May 18, 2018. The only allegation he makes particularly against putative Defendants is that they were “ADDENDING [sic] & ABETTING GUILY PARTIES of the VA.” (Pl.'s Compl. 1.) In terms of relief, it appears Plaintiff is requesting monetary compensation, as he includes multiple dollar signs in the Complaint and uses the word “compensation.”

         Some background on the previous case is helpful in understanding Plaintiff's claims and this Court's decision, infra. In the previous case, Plaintiff appears to complain about his treatment by the VA, VA hospitals, and VA personnel. After granting Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), filing his complaint, and allowing summons to issue, the court in the previous case considered a motion to dismiss filed by all defendants in the matter. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond and did respond in a series of letters to that court. On March 14, 2019, Judge McNulty published an opinion and order dismissing the case, without prejudice. The basis for the decision was two-fold, lack of jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim. Plaintiff attempted to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), yet failed to exhaust administrative remedies or name the United States as the defendant. These were jurisdictional prerequisites which robbed the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the previous court found Plaintiff had failed to state a proper FTCA claim and that the claims filed were untimely.

         Here, Plaintiff appears to provide similar allegations concerning his treatment by the VA and the medical issues he still suffers from. (Pl.'s Compl. 3-4.) As discussed supra, it appears he asserts the criminal claim of aiding and abetting and requests this Court to review the decision of the previous court dismissing his action. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's IFP Application and the Complaint, as well as a Motion for “Financial Stabilities.” The IFP Application and Complaint are ripe for this Court's sua sponte screening.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Plaintiff alleges this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. This Court will examine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction infra.

         B. Plaintiff's IFP Application

         Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3, the Clerk shall not be required to enter any suit, file any paper, issue any process, or render any other service for which a fee is prescribed, unless the fee is paid in advance. Under certain circumstances, however, this Court may permit an indigent plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.

         A pro se plaintiff wishing to proceed in forma pauperis must fill out form “AO 239 (Rev. 01/15) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.” The form requires the plaintiff to “[c]omplete all questions in this application, ” and “[d]o not leave any blanks.” In addition, “if the answer to a question is ‘0,' ‘none,' or ‘not applicable (N/A),' write that response.” The form contains twelve questions, and many questions contain numerous subparts, which are utilized by the Court to determine a plaintiff's indigency. Finally, as part of the application, the plaintiff must swear under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the application is true.

         In this action, Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court finds Plaintiff has filed a completed AO 239 form that contains his signature swearing, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained therein is true. Based upon the information contained in the IFP Application, this Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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