Felix R. Campos v. Victoria Kuhn, et al.

D. New Jersey

Felix R. Campos v. Victoria Kuhn, et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided March 23, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-02243·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FELIX R. CAMPOS, Case No. 26–cv–02243–ESK Plaintiff,

v. OPINION VICTORIA KUHN, et al., Defendants. KIEL, U.S.D.J. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Felix R. Campos’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Application) (ECF No. 8). On March 10, 2026, I administratively terminated plaintiff’s complaint because he did not include an in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 6.) In forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. See Shahin v. Sec. of Del., 532 F. App’x 123, 123, (3d Cir. 2013). “[T]he granting of applications to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the district courts.” United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971). The account statement included with the Application indicates that plaintiff receives regular deposits of $ 200. (See, e.g., ECF No. 8 p. 8 (showing $ 200 deposit on August 3, 2025, $ 250 deposit on August 20, 2025, $ 200 deposit on August 31, 2025, $ 200 deposit on October 5, 2025)). In 2026, plaintiff received $ 150 on January 5, 2026; $ 200 on January 14, 2026; and $ 200 on February 4, 2026. (Id. pp. 9, 10.) He denies being employed in prison and offers no explanation for these deposits. (Id. p. 3.) The account statement concludes on February 18, 2026, at which time plaintiff had a balance of $ 397.65 in his account. (Id. p. 10.) I find that plaintiff has not shown that he cannot afford the filing fee. Therefore, the Application is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $ 350 filing fee and $ 55 administrative fee to reopen the proceedings. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 23, 2026

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FELIX R. CAMPOS, Case No. 26–cv–02243–ESK Plaintiff,

v. OPINION VICTORIA KUHN, et al., Defendants. KIEL, U.S.D.J. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Felix R. Campos’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Application) (ECF No. 8). On March 10, 2026, I administratively terminated plaintiff’s complaint because he did not include an in forma pauperis application. (ECF No. 6.) In forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. See Shahin v. Sec. of Del., 532 F. App’x 123, 123, (3d Cir. 2013). “[T]he granting of applications to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the district courts.” United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971). The account statement included with the Application indicates that plaintiff receives regular deposits of $ 200. (See, e.g., ECF No. 8 p. 8 (showing $ 200 deposit on August 3, 2025, $ 250 deposit on August 20, 2025, $ 200 deposit on August 31, 2025, $ 200 deposit on October 5, 2025)). In 2026, plaintiff received $ 150 on January 5, 2026; $ 200 on January 14, 2026; and $ 200 on February 4, 2026. (Id. pp. 9, 10.) He denies being employed in prison and offers no explanation for these deposits. (Id. p. 3.) The account statement concludes on February 18, 2026, at which time plaintiff had a balance of $ 397.65 in his account. (Id. p. 10.) I find that plaintiff has not shown that he cannot afford the filing fee. Therefore, the Application is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $ 350 filing fee and $ 55 administrative fee to reopen the proceedings. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 23, 2026

Felix R. Campos v. Victoria Kuhn, et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

Felix R. Campos v. Victoria Kuhn, et al. (Felix R. Campos v. Victoria Kuhn, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related