Robert Willie Johnson v. Mark W. Pedersen, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: April 7, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00863
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBERT WILLIE JOHNSON, Civil Action No. 26-00863 (JXN) (MAH) Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARK W. PEDERSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

NEALS, District Judge

Plaintiff Robert Willie Johnson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1), motion for corporate fraud, illegal detention, human trafficking, bribery and judicial malpractice (ECF No. 9), and a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff, however, has not paid the appropriate filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the motions will be DENIED. On January 28, 2026, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a letter advising him that the initial pleading could not be processed unless the $405 filing fee was paid. (See ECF No. 3.) The Clerk’s letter provided that “Within 21 days of the date of entry of this letter, either remit the proper fee or submit a completed and signed in forma pauperis application. If the proper fee or in forma pauperis application is not submitted in 21 days, the initial pleading will be deemed withdrawn, and the Court shall close the file in this matter without further notice.” (Id.) Plaintiff failed to comply. As a result, on March 4, 2026, the Court entered an Order closing this case. (ECF No. 4.) Still, the Court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to reopen this action by paying the filing fee or submitting a completed and signed in forma pauperis application by no later than April 3, 2026. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted an in forma pauperis application. Courts have found that “[d]ismissal without prejudice is appropriate where a litigant fails to file an appropriate application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing

fee.” Shingara v. Northumberland Co. Tax & Assessment Off., No. 24-1799, 2025 WL 1345249, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 24-01799, 2025 WL 1337550 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2025); see also Rizvi v. Md. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 791 F. App'x 288, 289–90 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming district court order dismissing complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute where plaintiff's in forma pauperis application was denied and plaintiff did not timely pay filing fee); Lindsey v. Roman, 408 F. App'x 530, 532-22 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming a District Court's dismissal of a pro se litigant's complaint where the litigant did not pay the fee or submit the appropriate forms in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis); Parker v. Harrisburg City, No. 17-653, 2017 WL 3015880, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 7, 2017) (recommending that a pro se litigant's complaint be dismissed without prejudice where he did

not file a completed application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis after being provided an opportunity to do so), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 3008583 (M.D. Pa. July 14, 2017). As Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee nor submitted an in forma pauperis application, the Complaint cannot be filed or considered by the Court. Accordingly, IT IS on this 7th day of April 2026, ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall reopen this matter for purposes of this Order only; 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. Plaintiff’s motions for corporate fraud, illegal detention, human trafficking, bribery, and judicial malpractice (ECF No. 9), and for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10) are DENIED; and 4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve this Memorandum and Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail and shall CLOSE the file in this matter.

JULIEN XAVIER NEALS United States District Judge