Nasir Finneman v. Raymon Fuller et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-12865
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS NASIR FINNEMAN, ! Civil Action Plaintift No, 25-12865-KMW-MJS

RAYMON FULLER ef al, eee eee INION AND

Defendants,

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Nasir Finneman’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application, Plaintiff declares that he has a monthly income of $998.43 from disability, and public assistance, and has approximately $1000.00 in expenses per month. IFP Application ff 1, 8. Plaintiff asserts that he does not have other liquid assets, nor does he have a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, nor does he have any dependents. Jd. Plaintiff further avers that he is currently unemployed, and his only source of income is Social Security Income and Welfare food stamps. IFP Application { 11. 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

WHEREAS the Court notes that although a person “need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis,” Plaintiff must nonetheless, “establish that [he] is unable to pay the costs of [his] suit,” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016); and THE COURT FINDING that because Plaintiffs monthly expenses exceed his income, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court grants the IFP Application, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2\(B), the Court is to review Plaintiff's Complaint and dismiss any claim that is frtvolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or otherwise seeks relief from an immune defendant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to establish jurisdiction. WHEREAS, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have an independent obligation to address issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and may do so at any stage of the litigation. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (Gd Cir. 2010); Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEILife, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 Gd Cir, 2015). Ifa federal district court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. See Fed. R, Ctv, P, 12(h)(3). To establish jurisdiction, a pleading must either present a federal claim! or trigger the court’s diversity jurisdiction’, See Gibson v. Tip Towing & Recovery LLC, No. 23-2919, 2024 WL 658977 at *1 (3d Cir. Feb. 16, 2024).

' To assert a federal claim, a pleading must assert an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, Gibson, 2024 WL 658977 at *1 n.2, The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “weill-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when “the face of a properly pleaded complaint asserts a federal question.” Deutsche Bank Nat’! Tr. Co. vy. Harding, 655 F. App’x 113, 114 Gd Cir. 2016) (citing Caterpiflar, Ine. v. Williams, 482 US, 386, 392 (1987). * To assert diversity jurisdiction, a pleading must demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship among the parties, (meaning that cach defendant must be a citizen of a different state than cach plaintiff}, with the amount in controversy being over $75,000.00, Gibson, 2024 WL 658977 at

The Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction is established pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, but his Complaint does not point to any violation of the Constitution or treaty of the United States, nor does it plead any violations of federal law. While the Court has an obligation to construe a pre se litigant’s pleadings to less stringent standards than the formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, this does not “absolve a pro se plaintiff of the need to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” Davis v. Forsdahl, No. 23-2313, 2025 WL 1118629 at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 15, 2025). As such, the Plaintiff is required to sufficiently establish jurisdiction in his Complaint. However, even construing the facts alleged, nothing in the Complaint amounts to a cognizable federal claim such that the Court may properly exercise jurisdiction’. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY on this S| Sr of October, 2025, ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1-2) is GRANTED, and further it is ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No, 1) shall be filed; and further it ts ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and further it is ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty (0) days to amend his pleadings in light of the deficiencies described in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and if Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will Order the Clerk of Court to close the case; and further it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. te mm,

KAREN M. WILLIAMS United States District Judge

> The Court notes that the Plaintiff does not assert that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to diversity jurisdiction.