SCOTT v. THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS NORMAN L. SCOTT, SR., Plaintiff, No. 25-13556 (KMW-SAK) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Norman L. Scott, Sr.’s (“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 1-2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and THE COURT NOTING that, having reviewed Plaintiff's IFP Application, Plaintiff declares that his average monthly income is $2,200.00 and his average monthly expenses are approximately $475.00. IFP Application { 1, 8. Plaintiff does not have other liquid assets, nor does he list a spouse to contribute income or share in expenses, {| 1-8; and WHEREAS, the Third Circuit has held that an application to proceed without paying filing fees is “based on a showing of indigence,” Douris vy. Newtown Borough, Inc., 207 F, App’x 242, 3d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); WHERAS, the Court observes that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(A), “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that--(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue,” id/ (emphasis added); see also Kachur ». WMC Mortg. Corp., No. 18-15111, 2018 WL 5634007, at (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2018) (dismissing the complaint sua sponte upon denial of in forma pauperis application where the court found that, “[clonsidering Plaintiffs’ monthly income, savings, and expenses, Plaintiffs ha[d] not established that they [could not} pay the costs of litigation.”); and WHERAS, the Court notes that although a “person need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis,” Plaintiff must nonetheless “establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit,” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. App’x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016); and WHEREAS, here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s monthly income, savings, and expenses fail to establish that Plaintiff cannot pay the costs of litigation; CONSEQUENTLY, for all the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, Plaintiff’s IFP application is DENIED without prejudice. An order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

Dated: August i4f , 2025 ~ UZ REN M. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Although the Court does not screen the Complaint for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § £915(e}(2)(B), the Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief based on arguments raised by counsel in the course of litigation, the litigation privilege bars liability for such claims. See Rickenbach v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 635 F. Supp. 2d 389, 401 (D.N.E. 2009) (noting the litigation privilege ensures that “[s]tatements by attorneys, parties and their representatives made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged and immune from liability.”). Should Plaintiff pay the filing fee or demonstrate his entitlement to proceed IFP, the Court would then evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's Complaint. Kachur, 2018 WL 5634007, at *1 n.1; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e}(2)(B).