United States District Court, D. New Jersey
BENNIE N. HUNT, JR., Plaintiff,
JUDGE KEVIN MCNULTY and JUDGE JAMES B. CLARK, Defendants.
N. HUNT, JR. APPEARING PRO SE.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
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.
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”. (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
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
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.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
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
Plaintiff's IFP Application
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
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
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 ...