Glen Pickett v. Trooper Quanzell Lambert, et al.

D. New Jersey

Glen Pickett v. Trooper Quanzell Lambert, et al.

DecidedMarch 10, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-18308

StatusUnknown

This text of Glen Pickett v. Trooper Quanzell Lambert, et al. (Glen Pickett v. Trooper Quanzell Lambert, 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

Glen Pickett v. Trooper Quanzell Lambert, et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

! HONORABLE KAREN M, WILLIAMS GLEN PICKETT, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-18308 (KMW-MSJS) TROOPER QUANZELL LAMBERT. ef al, | MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Defendants, ! ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Glen Pickett’s (“Plaintiff’) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(a){1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 2), Plaintiff declares that he has a monthly income of $2,071.00 from Disability and Public Assistance, and has approximately $1,356.58 in expenses per month. (FP Application {ff 1, 8). Plaintiff asserts that he has $60 in his checking account and a motor vehicle valued at $22,000. (IFP Application 4-5). Plaintiff asserts that he does not have a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, and he does not have any dependents. Id. 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 [his] suit,” Hurst vy. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016); and THE COURT FINDING that because Plaintiffs monthly expenses do not exceed his monthly income, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court DENIES the IFP Application. IT IS HEREBY on this “day of March, 2026, ORDERED A. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 (ECF No. 1-2) is hereby DENIED. B. The clerk is ordered to close the file. Plaintiff may submit payment in the amount of $405 to reopen the case without further action from the court. C. Failure to submit payment within 14 days from the date of this order may result in this case being terminated. D. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. 5 Sen UXAREN M. WILLIAMS United States District Judge

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

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

! HONORABLE KAREN M, WILLIAMS GLEN PICKETT, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-18308 (KMW-MSJS) TROOPER QUANZELL LAMBERT. ef al, | MEMORANDUM OPINION AND Defendants, ! ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Glen Pickett’s (“Plaintiff’) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(a){1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 2), Plaintiff declares that he has a monthly income of $2,071.00 from Disability and Public Assistance, and has approximately $1,356.58 in expenses per month. (FP Application {ff 1, 8). Plaintiff asserts that he has $60 in his checking account and a motor vehicle valued at $22,000. (IFP Application 4-5). Plaintiff asserts that he does not have a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, and he does not have any dependents. Id. 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 [his] suit,” Hurst vy. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016); and THE COURT FINDING that because Plaintiffs monthly expenses do not exceed his monthly income, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court DENIES the IFP Application. IT IS HEREBY on this “day of March, 2026, ORDERED A. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 (ECF No. 1-2) is hereby DENIED. B. The clerk is ordered to close the file. Plaintiff may submit payment in the amount of $405 to reopen the case without further action from the court. C. Failure to submit payment within 14 days from the date of this order may result in this case being terminated. D. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. 5 Sen UXAREN M. WILLIAMS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glen Pickett v. Trooper Quanzell Lambert, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glen-pickett-v-trooper-quanzell-lambert-et-al-njd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack