-LHG MARCIANO & PATRICIA PARODI v. WIEGARTNER et al, No. 3:2009cv05838 - Document 3 (D.N.J. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice Pltf's IFP application; that the Clerk mail a copy of this Order to Pltfs via regular mail; closing case. Signed by Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 4/12/2010. (gxh)

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MARCIANO PARODI AND PATRICIA PARODI, Plaintiffs, v. JANE WIEGARTNER, ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : Civil No. 09-5838 (GEB) OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, Chief Judge On November 16, 2009, the above captioned case was opened in this Court after Plaintiffs Marciano Parodi and Patricia Parodi ( Plaintiffs ) filed a complaint and accompanying application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Comp.; IFP Application; Doc. No. 1.) It appears that: 1. The Clerk of the Court will not file the complaint unless the person seeking relief pays the entire applicable filing fee in advance or the person applies for and is granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Local Civil R. 5.1(f). 2. The filing fee for commencing a civil action in this court is $350.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 3. Plaintiffs did not prepay $350.00; rather, they submitted their application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis ( IFP Application ), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (IFP Application; Doc. No. 1.) 4. In considering Plaintiffs IFP Application, the Court reviewed Plaintiffs complaint and noted their assertion that Defendants alleged failure to provide certain documents pursuant to United States Magistrate Judge Bongiovanni s prior order violated their rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Compl.; Doc. No. 1.) The Court concludes, however, that after viewing all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and after construing Plaintiffs claim more liberally due to their pro se status, that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a plausible claim that any right protected by either the 4th or 14th Amendments was violated by Defendants conduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). As a result, Plaintiffs claim for a remedy under 28 U.S.C. Section § 1983 fails as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and shall be dismissed. 5. In light of the Court s dismissal of Plaintiffs claim under § 1983, the Court will deny Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and order the Clerk of the Court to close this case. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons; IT IS THIS 12th day of April, 2010, hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice; (Doc. No. 1.) ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs via regular U.S. Mail at their last known address; ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court CLOSE this case. /s/ Garrett E. Brown, Jr. GARRETT E. BROWN, JR., U.S.D.J. Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.