Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090522_0000941.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 00:34:01
Document Index: 70755703

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 2', '§ 2255', '§ 201', '§ 1983', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

| Roth v. Southern State Correctional Facility
Roth v. Southern State Correctional Facility
DAVID A. ROTH, PLAINTIFF,v.SOUTHERN STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff David A. Roth, a prisoner confined at Southern State Correctional Facility in Delmon, New Jersey, seeks an order from this Court extending his time to file a tort claim arising out of an alleged assault. Plaintiff has not attached a Complaint to the letter request. Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $350 filing fee for a civil action nor submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff may not have known when he submitted his request that he must pay the filing fee for a civil action, and that even if the full filing fee, or any part of it, has been paid, the Court must dismiss the case 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). If the Court dismisses the case for any of these reasons, the PLRA does not suspend installment payments of the filing fee or permit the prisoner to get back the filing fee, or any part of it, that has already been paid.
In addition, this Court has jurisdiction only over actual cases or controversies, U.S. Const. art. III § 2; Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976), and may not render advisory opinions, Presier v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975).
Once Plaintiff files a Complaint, any arguments he might make concerning its timeliness will be ripe for review, and this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and rule on them. Until that time, however, this Court has no jurisdiction to dispose of Plaintiff's letter request, for it presents no case or controversy, and seeks instead merely an advisory opinion. See, e.g., United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 162-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (collecting cases) (holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 until such motion is actually filed); United States v. Cook, 795 F.2d 987, 994 (Fed.Cir. 1986) (holding, in action arising under Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, that district court was without authority to toll statute of limitations as to claims that might be asserted in the future by claimants not a party to the action before the district court).
Nor can this Court construe the letter request as a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (courts must construe pro se filings liberally), as Plaintiff does not identify any proposed defendants or describe his claims sufficiently to give proposed defendants fair notice of the claims against them. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) ("Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 n.12 (3d Cir. 2004) (a complaint must plead facts sufficient at least to "suggest" a basis for liability); Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (a court need not credit a pro se plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions"); Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a) (requiring a complaint to contain "a short and plaint statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"). See also Green v. United States, 2001 WL 848956 at *3 (2d Cir. July 27, 2001) (holding that where a motion for extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition contains allegations supporting a claim for relief it should be construed as a § 2255 petition, but where the motion lacks sufficient allegations the court is without jurisdiction to consider the motion).
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will be ordered to administratively terminate this action, without assessing a filing fee. An appropriate Order will be entered.