MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

D. New Jersey

MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided November 2, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-14856·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

YULIYA MIRETSKAYA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No, 20-14856 (MAS) (DEA) . MEMORANDUM ORDER RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the in forma pauperis application (“IFP Application”) of Plaintiff Yuliya Miretskaya (‘Plaintiff’) to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (FP Appl., ECF No. 55.) On September 21, 2021, following receipt of Plaintiffs correspondence that demonstrated financial hardship in serving Defendants in this case, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a proper IFP Application. (Order 1-2, ECF No. 46.) On October 10, 2021, Plaintiff mailed the Court his IFP Application. (IFP Appl. 1.) The Court must carefully review Plaintiff's IPP Application and “if convinced that [the applicant] is unable to pay the court costs and filing fees, the [C]ourt will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Douris v. Middletown Township, 293 F. App’x 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d. Cir 1995)). Plaintiff's IFP Application included a statement of his assets, income, and expenses. (See generally IFP Appl.) The IFP Application is complete and indicates that Plaintiff is unemployed and possesses no savings or assets, aside from $900 in cash. Ud. at 2, 5.) The Court, accordingly, finds that Plaintiff has established indigence and grants the IFP Application. The Court also screens the Complaint to

determine whether it should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court concludes that the Complaint is not frivolous, does not fail to state a claim, and does not appear to sue a defendant immune from monetary relief. Indeed, the Court has already adjudicated a motion to dismiss in this matter and denied that motion in part. (See ECF No. 34.) IT IS THEREFORE, on this 2nd day of November 2021, ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED.

IMICHAEL A. surf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

YULIYA MIRETSKAYA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No, 20-14856 (MAS) (DEA) . MEMORANDUM ORDER RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the in forma pauperis application (“IFP Application”) of Plaintiff Yuliya Miretskaya (‘Plaintiff’) to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (FP Appl., ECF No. 55.) On September 21, 2021, following receipt of Plaintiffs correspondence that demonstrated financial hardship in serving Defendants in this case, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a proper IFP Application. (Order 1-2, ECF No. 46.) On October 10, 2021, Plaintiff mailed the Court his IFP Application. (IFP Appl. 1.) The Court must carefully review Plaintiff's IPP Application and “if convinced that [the applicant] is unable to pay the court costs and filing fees, the [C]ourt will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Douris v. Middletown Township, 293 F. App’x 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d. Cir 1995)). Plaintiff's IFP Application included a statement of his assets, income, and expenses. (See generally IFP Appl.) The IFP Application is complete and indicates that Plaintiff is unemployed and possesses no savings or assets, aside from $900 in cash. Ud. at 2, 5.) The Court, accordingly, finds that Plaintiff has established indigence and grants the IFP Application. The Court also screens the Complaint to

determine whether it should be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court concludes that the Complaint is not frivolous, does not fail to state a claim, and does not appear to sue a defendant immune from monetary relief. Indeed, the Court has already adjudicated a motion to dismiss in this matter and denied that motion in part. (See ECF No. 34.) IT IS THEREFORE, on this 2nd day of November 2021, ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED.

IMICHAEL A. surf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, (D.N.J. 2021).

Pincite

MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY (MIRETSKAYA v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related