CROSSON v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, No. 1:2016cv08354 - Document 5 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/30/17. (js)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CROSSON v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY EBONY CROSSON, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-8354 (JBS-KMW) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge Plaintiff Ebony Crosson, a prisoner currently confined at Edna Maran Correctional Facility, seeks to bring this civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”), without prepayment of fees or security. IFP Application, Docket Entry 4. Plaintiff submitted an account statement that shows that as of March 10, 2017, Plaintiff had an account balance of $2,695. IFP Application at 17. IFP status is a privilege, not a right. Shahin v. Sec. of Del., 532 F. App’x 123 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing White v. Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)). “In determining whether a litigant is eligible for IFP status, the Court should consider the financial position of the party.” Id. (affirming denial of IFP in spite of monthly income of only $95 from selfemployment as plaintiff would not be deprived of “necessities of life”). Dockets.Justia.com Here, Plaintiff’s income as reflected by the account statement indicates she is able to afford the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee. Requiring her to pay the filing fee would not deprive her of the necessities of life as the prison provides her food, clothing, and shelter. Like the plaintiff in Shahin, Plaintiff may have to save in order to pay the filing fee, but such requirement “would not deprive [him] of the ‘necessities of life.’” 532 F. App’x at 124. The Court will therefore deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis. An appropriate order follows. March 30, 2017 Date s/ Jerome B. Simandle JEROME B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge 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.
