Order | Filed: July 31, 2026
| Entered: July 31, 2026
CLONAN et al v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM/ATLANTIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM et al
Civil Rights: Other | New Jersey
Text Order
TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (ECF No. 86 .) "Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the discretion of the district court. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving his entitlement to in forma pauperis status." Bornstein v. McMaster-Carr Supply Co., No. 23-2849, 2024 WL 4437867, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2024) (citation omitted); see In re Mock, 252 F. App'x 522, 523 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ("When exercising its discretion to approve or deny a motion to proceed IFP, a District Court 'must be rigorous... to ensure that the treasury is not unduly imposed upon.'" (omission in original)). In his IFP application, Plaintiff states that he and his spouse have earned $7,750.33 monthly for the past year, that their monthly income starting next month will be $8,000, and that their monthly expenses total $6,003.84. Plaintiff's monthly expenses thus exceed his income by about $1,750-2,000. While Plaintiff states that he "is currently on an active mortgage forbearance" and "more than four months behind on... mortgage payments," he does not indicate how this affects his expenses (or if it is instead part of his stated monthly mortgage payment, i.e., included in his $6,003.84 in monthly expenses, which, again, falls below his monthly income). Plaintiff further provides that his home is valued at $549,000, his car is valued at $19,500, and he and his spouse have $3,671.40 in bank accounts. He also states that he has already spent or will spend $1,500 in expenses or attorney's fees in connection with this lawsuit. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has not made the "showing of indigence" necessary to obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 n.5 (3d Cir. 1995). "While the plaintiff does not need to prove that he is 'absolutely destitute' to be eligible for the benefits of the in forma pauperis statute, courts typically deny an IFP application[] if paying the filing fees would not deprive plaintiff of the 'necessities of life.'" Bornstein, 2024 WL 4437867, at *2 (first quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948); then quoting Shahin v. Sec'y of Del., 532 F. App'x 123, 124 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)); see Rohn v. Johnston, 415 F. App'x 353, 355 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 86 ). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Text Order to Plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Robert Kirsch on 07/31/2026. (pdm)