UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

JASON A. DOTTS, :

: Civil Action No. 11-2566 (MLC)

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : O P I N I O N

:

MICHAEL MONAHAN, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

COOPER, District Judge

Plaintiff, Jason A. Dotts, a prisoner confined at Monmouth

County Correctional Institution at Freehold, New Jersey, seeks to

bring this civil action in forma pauperis, without prepayment of

fees or security, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Civil actions brought in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915, which establishes certain financial requirements for

prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil action or file an

appeal in forma pauperis.

A prisoner seeking to bring 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(s) for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The prisoner must obtain this certified

statement from the appropriate official of each prison at which

he was or is confined. Id.

Case 3:11-cv-02566-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 11
Even if the prisoner is granted in forma pauperis status,

the prisoner must pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee in

installments. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). In each month that the 1

amount in the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, until the $350

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 an installment payment equal to 20 % of

the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff may not have known when he submitted his complaint

that he must pay the filing fee, and that even if the full filing

fee, or any part of it, has been paid, the Court must dismiss the

complaint if it finds that the action: (1) is 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) (in forma

pauperis actions); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (dismissal in which

prisoner seeks redress from governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e (dismissal of prisoner actions brought as to prison

conditions). If the Court dismisses the case for any of these

reasons, installment payments of the filing fee will not be

suspended and the prisoner is not permitted to get back the

filing fee, or any part of it, that has already been paid.

 Plaintiff here submitted an out-of-date form stating that 1

the filing fee is $250. The filing fee is $350.

2

Case 3:11-cv-02566-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 12
If the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while

incarcerated, brought in federal court an action or appeal that

was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or malicious,

or that it failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

he cannot bring another action in forma pauperis unless he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff here failed to either pre-pay the $350 filing fee

or submit a complete in forma pauperis application as required by

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2), including a certified account

statement. See, e.g., Tyson v. Youth Ventures, 42 Fed.Appx. 221

(10th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 769 (2007).

The allegations of the Complaint do not suggest that

Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will

administratively terminate this action, without filing the

complaint or assessing a filing fee. Plaintiff will be granted

leave to move to re-open within 30 days. An appropriate Order

will be entered.2

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: May 12, 2011

 An administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for 2

purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is

reopened pursuant to the terms of the accompanying Order, it is

not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was

originally filed timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); McDowell v. Del. State Police, 88

F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Williams-Guice v. Bd. of

Educ., 45 F.3d 161, 163 (7th Cir. 1995).

3

Case 3:11-cv-02566-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 05/12/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 13