Myron Crisdon v. Hudson Valley Property Group, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-18767
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS MYRON CRISDON, Plaintiff, No. 25-18767 (XMW-SAK) Vv. MEMORANDUM OPINION HUDSON VALLEY PROPERTY GROUP, AND ORDER LLC, Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Myron Crisdon’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (Dkt. No. 1-2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 2); and THE COURT NOTING that Plaintiff has submitted an incomplete IFP Application that omits pages three (3) and five (5) of the appropriate form for non-prisoner litigants to apply for in forma pauperis, AO-239, which requires information related to Plaintiff’s expenses, assets, accounts receivable, and dependents. (See Dkt. No. 1-2); and 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 □□□ App’x 242, 243 (3d Cir, 2006) (citation omitted); and WHERAS, the Court observes that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(A), “the court Shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—(A) the allegation of poverty is

untrue,” id.* (emphasis added); see also Kachur vy. WMC Mortg. Corp., No. 18-15111, 2018 WL 5634007, at *1 (D.N.J, Oct. 31, 2018) (dismissing the complaint sua sponte upon denial of in forma pauperis application where the court found that, “[c]onsidering Plaintiffs’ monthly income, savings, and expenses, Plaintiffs ha[d} not established that they [could not] pay the costs of litigation.”); and WHERAS, 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 WHEREAS, here, Plaintiff has not convinced the Court that he is unable to pay the costs and fees of litigation; therefore, IT IS this day of December, 2025 ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s [FP Application (Dkt. No. 1-2) is DENIED without prejudice, (2) Plaintiff may submit the required $405.00 filing fee or file a renewed Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs by January 21, 2026. (3) The Clerk of the Court shall close this matter and serve a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

KAREN M. WILLIAMS ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

“Should Plaintifff] demonstrate [his] entitiement to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee, the Court would then evaluale the merits of Plaintiff's application for a TRO.” Kaelnr, 2018 WL 5634007, at *1 n.1.