Pastor Jarvis Robinson v. The Kintock Group Inc., Marcos DeJesus

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: December 18, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-15462
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS PASTOR JARVIS ROBINSON, Plaintiff, No, 25-15462 (KMW-MJS) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION THE KINTOCK GROUP INC., MARCOS AND ORDER DEJESUS, Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Pastor Jarvis Rebinson’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Casts (“TFP Application’) (Dit. No. 1-2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § [915(a)(1); and

THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP Application, Plaintiff declares that his average monthly income its $30,000.00 and his average monthly expenses are approximately $4,125.00. Application {| 1, 8. Plaintiff does not have other liquid assets, nor does he list a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, [J 1-8; and

WHEREAS, the Third Circuit has held that an application to proceed without paying filing fees is “based on a showing of indigence,” Douris □□ Newtown Borough, Inc., 207 F. App’x 242, 243 (3d Cir, 2006) (citation omitted); 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 ts

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, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s monthly income, savings, and expenses fail to establish that Plaintiff cannot pay the casts of litigation; therefore,

ITIS this |“ day of December, 2025 ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs application is DENTED 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 15, 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' “Should Plaintiff] demonstrate [his] entitlement to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee, the Court would then evaluate the merits” of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Kachur, 2018 WL 5634007, at *1 ni,