Kevin Artis v. First Premier Bank

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KEVIN ARTIS, Civil Action No. 26-05868 (SDW) (AME)

Plaintiff,

WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER v.

FIRST PREMIER BANK, June 23, 2026

Defendant.

WIGENTON, District Judge. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Kevin Artis’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (D.E. 1 (“Compl.”)) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, (D.E. 3 (“IFP application”)); and WHEREAS a district court may allow a plaintiff to commence a civil action without paying the filing fee—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff submits an affidavit demonstrating he is “unable to pay such fees.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1). Whether to grant an IFP application falls within a district court's discretion. Cotto v. Tennis, 369 F. App'x 321, 322 (3d Cir. 2010); and WHEREAS in this district, courts routinely deny IFP applications if paying the filing fees would not deprive a litigant of the “necessities of life.” See Jalil v. Att'y G., No. 24-1055, 2024 WL 1177167, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2024) (citing Shahin v. Sec'y of Delaware, 532 F. App'x 123, 124 (3d Cir. 2013) (denying IFP application for litigant with minimal monthly income and spouse, who provided “necessities of life”)); Bornstein v. McMaster-Carr Supply Co., No. 23-02849, 2023 WL 4373221, at *1 (D.N.J. July 6, 2023) (stating that plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee without being deprived of the “necessities of life”); see also Chrustowski v. Archer & Greiner, No. 23-21194, 2024 WL 1299637, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2024) (“A court does not abuse its discretion in denying an IFP application when the applicant's financial affidavit shows that her

monthly income is significantly higher that her monthly expenses.”); and WHEREAS Plaintiff’s IFP application indicates Plaintiff has received a monthly income of twelve thousand dollars during the past twelve months and represents $9,840 in monthly expenses, including housing costs, food, and transportation. As such, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has sufficient funds to pay the filing fee without being deprived of the “necessities of life.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application is denied; therefore IT IS, on this 23rd day of June 2026, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively terminate this matter; and its further

ORDERED that Plaintiff many have this matter reopened, if, within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff notifies the Court in writing and submits the filing fee. SO ORDERED. /s/ Susan D. Wigenton SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Orig: Clerk cc: Parties André M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J.