Ruben Rodriguez v. Trooper D.C. Korey #9057, et al.

D. New Jersey

Ruben Rodriguez v. Trooper D.C. Korey #9057, et al.

DecidedMay 29, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-17380

StatusUnknown

This text of Ruben Rodriguez v. Trooper D.C. Korey #9057, et al. (Ruben Rodriguez v. Trooper D.C. Korey #9057, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruben Rodriguez v. Trooper D.C. Korey #9057, et al., (D.N.J. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff ! Civil Action y. No. 25-cv-17380 (XMW-EAP) TROOPER D.C, KOREY #9057, ef al, MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants. | AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Ruben Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application, Plaintiff declares that his average monthly income, combined with his spouse, is $4790.60, and his monthly expenses total $4195.80. (FP Application □□ 1, 8), Plaintiff lists additional assets that include a home and two cars and does not have any dependents. (IFP Application §{[ 5, 7); 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 F. 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 Plaintiff's monthly expenses do not exceed his income, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court denies the IFP Application.

nae IT IS HEREBY on this I day of May 2026, ORDERED A, Plaintiffs IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is hereby DENIED. B. The clerk is ordered to close the file. Plaintiff may submit payment in the amount of $405 within 14 days from the date of this order to reopen the case without further action from the court. Failure to submit the filing fee may result in the case being terminated, C. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. KS M, WILLIAMS ‘United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS Plaintiff ! Civil Action y. No. 25-cv-17380 (XMW-EAP) TROOPER D.C, KOREY #9057, ef al, MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants. | AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Ruben Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application, Plaintiff declares that his average monthly income, combined with his spouse, is $4790.60, and his monthly expenses total $4195.80. (FP Application □□ 1, 8), Plaintiff lists additional assets that include a home and two cars and does not have any dependents. (IFP Application §{[ 5, 7); 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 F. 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 Plaintiff's monthly expenses do not exceed his income, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he cannot pay the costs of litigation, and thus the Court denies the IFP Application.

nae IT IS HEREBY on this I day of May 2026, ORDERED A, Plaintiffs IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is hereby DENIED. B. The clerk is ordered to close the file. Plaintiff may submit payment in the amount of $405 within 14 days from the date of this order to reopen the case without further action from the court. Failure to submit the filing fee may result in the case being terminated, C. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. KS M, WILLIAMS ‘United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ruben Rodriguez v. Trooper D.C. Korey #9057, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruben-rodriguez-v-trooper-dc-korey-9057-et-al-njd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack