Farida Pacheo Capellan v. Walmart

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: June 9, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-16645
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, 3 Civil Action ! No. 25-16645 (KMW-EAP)

WALMART, ! □□□ OPINION Defendant. !

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Farida Pacheo Capellan’s (‘Plaintiff’) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) pursuant to 28 ULS.C. § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application, Plaintiff - declares that she has a monthly income of $425.00 from public assistance, and has approximately $2505.00 in expenses per month. (FP Application 7] 1, 8.) Plaintiff asserts that she does not have other liquid assets, nor does she have a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, and she has two dependents. (Ud. at 1, 7-8.) WHEREAS, the Third Circuit has held that an application to proceed without paying filing fees is “based on a showing of indigence,” Douris v. Newtown Borough, Inc., 207 F, App’x 242, 243 (3d 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 [she] is unable to pay the costs of [her] suit,” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016); and

THE COURT FINDING that because Plaintiff's monthly expenses exceed her income, Plaintiff has demonstrated that she 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 seeks 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, Piaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) on October 15, 2025, wherein she asserts employment discrimination under Title VII, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (See Compl. at p. 5); and WHEREAS, when a plaintiff alleges a claim under Title VU, they are obligated to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, including exhausting administrative remedies. Schenck vy, United Airlines, Inc., No. cv 23-3816, 2025 WL 2779141, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2025).; and WHEREAS, when a plaintiff alleges a claim under the ADA, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), they are also obligated to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, including exhausting administrative remedies. Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 261 (3d Cir. 2006); and WHEREAS, a plaintiff exhausts their administrative remedies in this context by filing a charge with the EEOC and subsequently receiving a notice of a right to sue from the EEOC after it completes its investigation. Schenck, 2025 WL 277914] at *6 (citing Devine v. St. Luke's Hosp., 406 F. App’x 654, 656 (3d Cir. 2011)); and

WHEREAS, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies “constitutes a ground for dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Itiowe v. NBC Universal Inc., 556 F. App'x 126, 128 (3d Cir. 2014); and WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs Complaint does not set forth facts establishing that she has exhausted her administrative remedies, Because the Plaintiff fails to establish that she was issued a notice of a right to sue from the EEOC, nor does she produce a copy of a such letter , her Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS HEREBY on this] day of June 2026, ORDERED

A, PlaintifPs Application to Proceed Ja Korma Pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. B. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be filed. C, The Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, D. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to amend her 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, E. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.

United States District Judge