Brian Heath v. Matthew Platkin, et al.

D. New Jersey

Brian Heath v. Matthew Platkin, et al.

DecidedJune 9, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-00031

StatusUnknown

This text of Brian Heath v. Matthew Platkin, et al. (Brian Heath v. Matthew Platkin, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brian Heath v. Matthew Platkin, et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE . ‘BRIANHEATH, = HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, ! Civil Action ve No. 26-0031 (KMW-SAK) MATTHEW PLATKIN, ef al, i MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants, i AND OPINION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Brian Heath’s (“Plamtiff’) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application CGECF No. 1- 1), Plaintiff declares that he has a monthly income of $0.00, and has approximately $2780.00 in expenses per month. Application { 1, 8). Plaintiff asserts that his only other assets are a home valued at $79,000 and a car. (IFP Application ¢ 1, 5). Plaintiff further asserts that he does not have a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, and he has two dependents. (IFP Application {4 1, 7-8.); and WHEREAS, the Third Circuit has held that an application to proceed without paying filing fees is “based on a showing of indigence,” Douris v. Newfown Borough, Inc., 207 F. App’x 242, 243 Gd Cir, 2006) (citation omitted); and . WHEREAS the Court notes that although a person “need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis,” Plaintiff must nonetheless, “establish that [he] is unable to pay the costs of [his] suit,” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir, 2016); and

THE COURT FINDING that because Plaintiff's monthly expenses exceed his income, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must review Plaintiffs Complaint and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or otherwise secks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to state a claim upon with relief may be granted; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) on January 4, 2026, wherein he asks the Court to “reverse what Family Court did by violating my Rights.” (Compl. at § 5); and WHEREAS, under the Reoker-Feldman Doctrine, federal district courts possess only original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction over state-court decisions, See In re Adams, 151 144, 151-52 Gd Cir, 2025), Accordingly, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review and overturn a state court judgment; that authority rests solely with the United States Supreme Court. /d, As such, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed. nis4 Say of IT EIS HEREBY on this“ day of June 2026, ORDERED:

A, Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 1-1) is GRANTED, B. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be filed. Cc. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. D. Plaintiff has thirty 30) days to amend his pleadings in light of the deficiencies described in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will Order the Clerk to close the case.

Denese amen □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ I . WILLIAMS United States District Judge —

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE . ‘BRIANHEATH, = HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, ! Civil Action ve No. 26-0031 (KMW-SAK) MATTHEW PLATKIN, ef al, i MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants, i AND OPINION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Brian Heath’s (“Plamtiff’) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application CGECF No. 1- 1), Plaintiff declares that he has a monthly income of $0.00, and has approximately $2780.00 in expenses per month. Application { 1, 8). Plaintiff asserts that his only other assets are a home valued at $79,000 and a car. (IFP Application ¢ 1, 5). Plaintiff further asserts that he does not have a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, and he has two dependents. (IFP Application {4 1, 7-8.); and WHEREAS, the Third Circuit has held that an application to proceed without paying filing fees is “based on a showing of indigence,” Douris v. Newfown Borough, Inc., 207 F. App’x 242, 243 Gd Cir, 2006) (citation omitted); and . WHEREAS the Court notes that although a person “need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis,” Plaintiff must nonetheless, “establish that [he] is unable to pay the costs of [his] suit,” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir, 2016); and

THE COURT FINDING that because Plaintiff's monthly expenses exceed his income, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must review Plaintiffs Complaint and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or otherwise secks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to state a claim upon with relief may be granted; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) on January 4, 2026, wherein he asks the Court to “reverse what Family Court did by violating my Rights.” (Compl. at § 5); and WHEREAS, under the Reoker-Feldman Doctrine, federal district courts possess only original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction over state-court decisions, See In re Adams, 151 144, 151-52 Gd Cir, 2025), Accordingly, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review and overturn a state court judgment; that authority rests solely with the United States Supreme Court. /d, As such, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed. nis4 Say of IT EIS HEREBY on this“ day of June 2026, ORDERED:

A, Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 1-1) is GRANTED, B. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be filed. Cc. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. D. Plaintiff has thirty 30) days to amend his pleadings in light of the deficiencies described in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will Order the Clerk to close the case.

Denese amen □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ I . WILLIAMS United States District Judge —

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brian Heath v. Matthew Platkin, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-heath-v-matthew-platkin-et-al-njd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack