SANTIAGO v. CITY OF NEWARK

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 23, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-15726
StatusUnknown

This text of SANTIAGO v. CITY OF NEWARK (SANTIAGO v. CITY OF NEWARK) 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
SANTIAGO v. CITY OF NEWARK, (D.N.J. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: FREDERICK SANTIAGO, : : Civil Action No. 25-15726 (BRM) (SDA) Plaintiff, : : v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : CITY OF NEWARK, et al., : : Defendants. : :

THIS MATTER is opened to the Court by pro se Plaintiff Frederick Santiago (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently confined at Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, upon the filing of a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). (ECF Nos. 1, 1-2.) The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”), which amends 28 U.S.C. § 1915, establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil action in forma pauperis. Under the Act, a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit, including a statement of all assets, which states that the prisoner is unable to pay the fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The prisoner also must submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The prisoner must obtain this statement from the appropriate official of each prison at which he was or is confined. Id. The entire fee to be paid in advance of filing a civil complaint is $405. That fee includes a filing fee of $350 plus an administrative fee of $55, for a total of $405. A prisoner who is granted in forma pauperis status will, instead, be assessed a filing fee of $350 and will not be responsible for the $55 administrative fee. If in forma pauperis status is denied, the prisoner must pay the full $405, including the $350 filing fee and the $55 administrative fee, before the complaint will be filed.

If the prisoner is granted in forma pauperis status, the prisoner must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee as follows. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). In each month that the amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the $350.00 filing fee is paid, the agency having custody of the prisoner shall assess, deduct from the prisoner’s account, and forward to the Clerk of the Court, payment equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). In other words, Plaintiff must pay the entire filing fee even if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and even if the case is dismissed before the entire fee has been paid. The Court must dismiss the case if it finds that the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the Court dismisses the case for any of these reasons, the Act does not permit the prisoner to get his filing fee back. In this action, Plaintiff failed to submit a complete in forma pauperis application as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It is not clear that the “Accounting Transactions and Balances” document filed with his application is for the six-month period preceding the filing, nor is it certified and signed by an appropriate prison official. Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, IT IS on this 23rd day of September 2025, ORDERED Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this case, without filing the complaint or assessing a filing fee; Plaintiff is informed that administrative

termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes of the statute of limitations, and that if the case is reopened, it is not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was originally filed timely, see Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80, 84 n.2 (3d Cir. 2013) (describing prisoner mailbox rule generally); Dasilva v. Heriff's Dep’t, 413 F. App’x 498, 502 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[The] statute of limitations is met when a complaint is submitted to the clerk before the statute runs . . . .”); and it is further ORDERED the Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff the appropriate application to be used by Plaintiff in any future application to proceed in forma pauperis; and it is further ORDERED if Plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, he shall so notify the Court, in writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut

Street, Newark, NJ 07101,within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order; Plaintiff’s writing shall include either (1) a complete, signed in forma pauperis application, including a certified prison account statement for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint, or (2) the $405 fee including the $350 filing fee plus the $55 administrative fee; and it is further ORDERED upon receipt of a writing from Plaintiff stating that he wishes to reopen this case, and either a complete in forma pauperis application or payment of the filing and administrative fees within the time allotted by this Court, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to reopen this case; and it is finally ORDERED the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

/s/Brian R. Martinotti HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

DaSilva v. Sheriff's Department
413 F. App'x 498 (Third Circuit, 2011)
Robert Jenkins v. Superintendent Laurel Highland
705 F.3d 80 (Third Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SANTIAGO v. CITY OF NEWARK, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-city-of-newark-njd-2025.