Victor A. Osorio v. Barrington Bank & Trust Company, N.A., et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: May 11, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-04897
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

VICTOR A. OSORIO, Civil Action No. 26-04897 (SDW) (JSA)

Plaintiff,

WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER v.

BARRINGTON BANK & TRUST May 11, 2026 COMPANY, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Plaintiff Victor Osorio’s (“Plaintiff”) filing of a Complaint (D.E. 1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, (D.E. 1-2 (“IFP application”)), and this Court having sua sponte reviewed the Complaint for sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a); 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); and WHEREAS pursuant to Rule 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.” 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)). Factual allegations in a complaint are generally accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); and

WHEREAS although federal courts liberally construe pro se complaints and hold them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), the complaint must still state a plausible claim for relief, Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 566 F. App’x 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2014). The legal standard for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is the same as that applied under Rule 12(b)(6). See Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021). Pro se litigants “must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim,” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013), and those factual allegations “must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); 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 also fails to provide any factual allegations sufficient to support a claim entitling Plaintiff to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts establishing this Court’s jurisdiction over the matter. See Clark v. McDonald's Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198, 205 (D.N.J. 2003)(stating that at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to establish his standing to invoke a court's jurisdiction); 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 11th day of May 2026, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to file an Amended 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 Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.