DALNOKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

D. New Jersey

DALNOKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DecidedJanuary 14, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-07850

StatusUnknown

This text of DALNOKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (DALNOKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY) 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

DALNOKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (D.N.J. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

PAUL B. DALNOKY, Civil No. 24-7850 (RMB) Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM ORDER

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Paul B. Dalnoky’s application requesting that he may proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP application, and whereas Plaintiff, in his IFP application, certifies that his average monthly income is $2,490, his average monthly expenses are $2,579, he has about $1,400 in checking accounts, $45 in cash, $13,500 in an IRA, but no other assets, see Docket No. 1-2, and whereas in his Complaint, Plaintiff states that starting in September 2024, he will receive $1,496 a month in social security retirement benefits, see Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket No. 1), and whereas “leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of indigence[,]” Douris v. Newtown Borough, Inc., 207 F. App'x 242, 243 (3d Cir. 2006), and whereas Plaintiff “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit[,]” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App'x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and whereas, after considering Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses listed in his IFP application, as well as the social security retirement benefits Plaintiff states he will receive, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish that he cannot pay the cost of litigation, and for other good cause shown, IT IS on this 14th day of January, 2025, hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit the required $405.00 filing fee or file a renewed

Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs within 30 days of the date of this Order; and it is finally ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this matter and serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

PAUL B. DALNOKY, Civil No. 24-7850 (RMB) Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM ORDER

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Paul B. Dalnoky’s application requesting that he may proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP application, and whereas Plaintiff, in his IFP application, certifies that his average monthly income is $2,490, his average monthly expenses are $2,579, he has about $1,400 in checking accounts, $45 in cash, $13,500 in an IRA, but no other assets, see Docket No. 1-2, and whereas in his Complaint, Plaintiff states that starting in September 2024, he will receive $1,496 a month in social security retirement benefits, see Compl. ¶ 1 (Docket No. 1), and whereas “leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of indigence[,]” Douris v. Newtown Borough, Inc., 207 F. App'x 242, 243 (3d Cir. 2006), and whereas Plaintiff “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit[,]” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App'x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and whereas, after considering Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses listed in his IFP application, as well as the social security retirement benefits Plaintiff states he will receive, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to establish that he cannot pay the cost of litigation, and for other good cause shown, IT IS on this 14th day of January, 2025, hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may submit the required $405.00 filing fee or file a renewed

Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs within 30 days of the date of this Order; and it is finally ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this matter and serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DALNOKY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalnoky-v-commissioner-of-social-security-njd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack