Not For Publication

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FRITZ GERALD TOUSSAINT,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-2233

v. OPINION & ORDER LATISSE MAYS-STOVALL, et al., Defendants.

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. Plaintiff Fritz Gerald Toussaint seeks to bring this matter in forma pauperis pursuant to

. D.E. 1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS his application to proceed in forma pauperis but DISMISSES the matter pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Under Section 1915, this Court may excuse a litigant from prepayment of fees when the litigant “establish[es] that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc.,

(3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff sufficiently establishes his inability to pay, D.E. 1, and the Court grants his application to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees and costs. When allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review the complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune.

(e)(2)(B). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the Complaint liberally and holds it to a less stringent standard than papers filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). The Court, however, need not “credit a pro se plaintiff's ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.’” Grohs v. Yatauro,

(D.N.J. 2013) (quoting Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,

(3d Cir. 1997)). In this matter, Plaintiff asserts claims against Latisse Mays-Stovall, M.D.; Clara Mass Hospital; Jersey City Medical Center; and the Kearny Police Department. Compl. at 2, D.E. 2. The Complaint states that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his civil rights and of equal protection

on three dates in 2021. Id. at 3, 4. Plaintiff later states that he is entitled to monetary damages because of the negligent action that resulted in Plaintiff being removed from his property against his will. Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks a protective order that restrains the Kearny Police and Defendant Mays-Stovall from preventing Plaintiff from returning. Id. at 5. With this limited information, the Court is unable to ascertain what claims Plaintiff is attempting to assert. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to properly state any claims. When dismissing a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, a court must decide whether the dismissal will be with prejudice or without prejudice, the latter of which affords a plaintiff with leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,

(3d Cir. 2002). The

district court may deny leave to amend only if (a) the moving party's delay in seeking amendment is undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party or (b) the amendment would be futile. Adams v. Gould, Inc.,

(3d Cir. 1984). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and this is the Court’s initial screening, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is afforded thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies set forth herein. If Plaintiff files an amended pleading, he must clearly explain the alleged wrongful conduct and the legal basis for any claims. If Plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint curing these deficiencies within thirty (30) days, Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this 26th day of April, 2022, ORDERED that pursuant to

(a), Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

(e)(2)(B); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is afforded thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies as set forth above. Failure to file an amended complaint within this time will result in the matter being dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiff by regular mail.

Qe WON A KC Johtr Michael Vazquez, U. Sp!”