Robert James Swint v. Echostar

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-04668
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBERT JAMES SWINT, Civil Action No. 26-04668 (SDW) (AME)

Plaintiff,

WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER v.

ECHOSTAR, June 3, 2026

Defendant.

WIGENTON, District Judge. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Robert James Swint’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (D.E. 1 (“Compl.”)), and this Court having reviewed the Complaint for sufficiency pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); 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,” but must dismiss a case that is frivolous, “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1), (e)(2)(B); see Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021); and WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The complaint must apprise the defendant with “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” containing “more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).; and

WHEREAS pro se complaints, although “[held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), must still “state a plausible claim for relief,” Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, 566 F. App’x 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)); and WHEREAS a claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts apply the same standard under Rule 12(b)(6) to sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App'x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; and WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to provide a clear statement of what his claims are, and the factual bases for them, such that the facts contained are insufficient to support a claim entitling Plaintiff to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); and WHEREAS this Court cannot properly determine Plaintiff’s financial status and whether he is eligible to proceed IFP because Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. See Mawalla v. Lakewood Police Dep't, No. 23-1083, 2023 WL 5985176, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 14, 2023) (denying IFP application without prejudice where plaintiff did not complete all boxes on IFP form); Rentas v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., No. 20-00737, 2020 WL 423406, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 27, 2020) (requiring plaintiff to complete IFP application “in full before the Court can consider it”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application is denied without prejudice; therefore IT IS, on this 3rd day of June 2026, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty days to amend his Complaint; failure to do so shall result in the matter being dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED. /s/ Susan D. Wigenton SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

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