Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lasane v. Campos, 17-6316 (MAS) (DEA). (2018)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20180302670 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MICHAEL A. SHIPP , District Judge . Plaintiff Michael Lasane, a convicted prisoner currently confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, seeks to proceed in this civil action in forma pauperis ("IFP"), asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case was originally filed in state court and was removed by Defendants to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441. It is unclear why Plaintiff is seeking IFP status because Defendants submitted the filing f
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Lasane, a convicted prisoner currently confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, seeks to proceed in this civil action in forma pauperis ("IFP"), asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was originally filed in state court and was removed by Defendants to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

It is unclear why Plaintiff is seeking IFP status because Defendants submitted the filing fee when they removed the matter from state Court. (See ECF No. 1.) The sole basis set forth in the IFP application is Plaintiff's assertion that he has already been found indigent by the state court. (ECF No. 14 at 3.) To qualify for IFP status in federal court, Plaintiff must satisfy the IFP requirements under federal law, and must apply for IFP status anew; the fact that he was granted indigent status in state court is irrelevant to this matter. See Niblack v. SCO Malbreen, No. 15-5298 (MAS), 2016 WL 1628881, at *4 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2016). If Plaintiff still wishes to seek IFP status in this matter, he must file a proper and complete application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP application is denied without prejudice.

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 12), filed less than two weeks after he filed a previous motion to amend (ECF No. 11), which the Court already granted. (See Text Order, Nov. 29, 2017, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff asserts in the most recent motion to amend that he inadvertently omitted certain claims against additional defendants. (ECF No. 12 at 5.) In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to amend. The Court, however, cautions Plaintiff that he is required to exercise diligence and must review all filings for errors prior to submission. Any future motions to amend must comply with the relevant federal and local civil rules and must be supported by good cause. Moreover, any further piecemeal motions will be viewed with disfavor.

IT IS therefore on this 16th day of January, 2018,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 14) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

ORDERED that the Clerk shall send Plaintiff the form entitled Affidavit of Poverty and Account Certification (Civil Rights) (DNJ ProSe 007 A(Rev. 5/13)) to be used by Plaintiff in any future application to proceed in forma pauperis;

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 12) is hereby GRANTED, and the Clerk shall file the proposed Second Amended Complaint; Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to the applicable rules; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer