Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2018
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION OPINION ANNE E. THOMPSON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the application filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Ajay Kajla ("Mr. Kajla") to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") without prepayment of fees on his appeal to the Third Circuit. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) 1 In considering an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court generally conducts a two-step analysis. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 , 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). First, the Court determ
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION OPINION ANNE E. THOMPSON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the application filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Ajay Kajla ("Mr. Kajla") to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") without prepayment of fees on his appeal to the Third Circuit. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) 1 In considering an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court generally conducts a two-step analysis. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 , 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). First, the Court determi..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION
ANNE E. THOMPSON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the application filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Ajay Kajla ("Mr. Kajla") to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") without prepayment of fees on his appeal to the Third Circuit. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.)1 In considering an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court generally conducts a two-step analysis. See Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). First, the Court determines whether the plaintiff is eligible to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). To satisfy this initial inquiry, litigants who wish to proceed in forma pauperis must file an application which includes an affidavit of indigence that states the individual's total income, all assets, and inability to pay filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Glenn v. Hayman, 2001 WL 432974, at *7 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2007).
Mr. Kajla appears to have satisfied the first inquiry. He has no income, he has been unemployed since July 2017, he has $496 total in personal bank accounts, he has cumulative monthly expenses of $2,822, he has two dependents (though he did not specify how much he contributes to their support), and he has debts totaling $12,199. (See ECF Nos. 17, 18-1.)2 The Court finds that Mr. Kajla is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis.
Second, the Court determines whether the appeal should be dismissed. An appeal may be subject to sua sponte dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from defendants who are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). "An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." Id. § 1915(a)(3).
Mr. Kajla appeals this Court's decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Mr. Kajla's own Motion to Amend. (See ECF Nos. 15, 16.) The Court does not find that this appeal is frivolous or malicious, and has no reason to believe it is not taken in good faith; therefore, sua sponte. dismissal is not warranted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court permits Mr. Kajla's appeal to be filed without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. An appropriate order will follow.
