UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROGER B. STONE, III, : Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 11-3229

v. :

THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE : MEMORANDUM OPINION

OFFICE OF THE COURTS, VICINAGE I & ORDER

of SUPERIOR COURT, THE STATE OF :

NEW JERSEY, and J. DOES #1 to #100, :

Defendants. :

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal from this Court’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction

and failure to state a claim, and on Plaintiff’s motion to seal his applications for in forma

pauperis status; and

The Court having considered Plaintiff’s requests; and

The Court finding that appeal may be taken in forma pauperis if the appellant is

unable to pay costs and the appeal is taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a); and 

The Court further finding that appellate review is made in good faith whenever an

appellant seeks review of an issue that is not frivolous when viewed from an objective

standard, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); and

The Court finding that Plaintiff has failed to advance reasoned, non-frivolous

argument on the law and facts in support of issues raised on appeal; and

The Court therefore certifying that the appeal from this Court’s decision has not

been taken on good faith; and 

Case 1:11-cv-03229-JHR-KMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 383
The Court finding that a motion to seal is governed by the requirements set forth

in Local Civil Rule 5.3, which begins with the presumption that “all materials and

judicial proceedings are matter of public record and shall not be sealed,” L. Civ. R.

5.3(a)(4); and

To override this presumption of public access, the moving party bears the burden

of showing that “good cause” exists for the protection of the material. “Good cause is

established when it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly

defined and serious injury.” Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.

1995) (citing Pansy v. Borough of Straudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (1994)); and 

Accordingly, in any motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access, “the motion

papers shall describe (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the

legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly

defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d)

why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.” L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2);

The Court finding that Plaintiff’s attorney has argued “I believe [the IFP

applications] clearly should be sealed from the public if requested for numerous policy

reasons, . . . for example, if a member of the public had knowledge that the IFP applicant

has a job or is wealthy, they would be free to notify the Court that the IFP form was

possibly fraudulent.”

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to seal his applications

for in forma pauperis status.

Accordingly,

2

Case 1:11-cv-03229-JHR-KMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 384
IT IS ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2012 that the form entered on the

docket as entry [32] is hereby VACATED.

Upon analysis of the application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from this

Court’s dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, the Court

DENIES the application, and further DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal his applications

to proceed in forma pauperis.

 /s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez 

JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ

U.S.D.J.

3

Case 1:11-cv-03229-JHR-KMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 385