IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 13, 2008
RAFAEL DANIEL DE LA CRUZ-JIMENEZ, PLAINTIFF,
D.C./FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo
Plaintiff Rafael De La Cruz-Jimenez seeks to file a Complaint (Doc. 1) against Defendants D.C./Federal Bureau of Prisons, Ronnie Hold, Cameron Lindsay, Stephen Wagner, Mr. DeRoberto, Ms. Koehn, and John MacDonald. He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 9.) The decision whether to grant or deny in forma pauperis (IFP) status rests within the sound discretion of the district court. See Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985).
28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides a two-step process for reviewing in forma pauperis petitions. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear that this Court should first consider a litigant's financial status and determine whether he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, before assessing the merits of the underlying complaint. Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990).
Though Plaintiff has filed a motion which roughly outlines his financial situation, he has failed to complete the appropriate Affidavit/Declaration to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, as required by the Court. In the 30 Day Administrative Order issued on February 11, 2008, the Order stated that the Plaintiff must either file the statutory filing fee of $350.00 or file the proper application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.) The administrative order noted that "[a]lthough De La Cruz-Jimenez filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the form indicated the old filing fee of $250.00. In addition, the Plaintiff did not file the required authorization form." (Doc. 7.) An application to proceed in forma pauperis and an authorization form were enclosed with the order. (Doc. 7.)
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms of the February 11, 2008 Order within the given thirty (30) days. Therefore, the case will be dismissed without prejudice. As the Plaintiff has failed to submit the proper documentation for in forma pauperis status or the filing fee, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel will also be denied.
NOW, this 13th day of March, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
(3) The case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(4) The Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.
A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.