GOMEZ-EL v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al, No. 2:2021cv00505 - Document 5 (D.N.J. 2024)
Court Description: WHEREAS OPINION & ORDER denying plaintiff's application IFP. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 5/7/2024. (lag, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GOMEZ-EL v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al Doc. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ANWAR SIRAJ GOMEZ-EL, ex rel. Carlos O. Larue, Civil Action No. 21-505 (SDW) (LDW) Plaintiff, WHEREAS OPINION AND ORDER v. May 7, 2024 THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Defendants. WIGENTON, District Judge. THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Anwar Siraj GomezEl’s (“Plaintiff”) filing of an amended complaint (D.E. 4 (“Amended Complaint”)) and a shortform application to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 4-3 (“IFP Application”)), and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions; and WHEREAS this matter was dismissed—and closed—on March 26, 2021, because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. 3.) Three years later, on April 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint and the IFP Application. (D.E. 4.) The IFP Application is deficient 1, and in any event, Plaintiff has presented no justification for reopening this case after such a long delay. Accordingly, this case will remain 1 Plaintiff has completed a short-form IFP application, which is not the application accepted in this District. See, e.g., DiPietro v. New Jersey, No. 19-17014, 2019 WL 4926865, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2019) (refusing to accept a short-form IFP application). Dockets.Justia.com closed. Should Plaintiff wish to litigate this case, he must file a new complaint—along with the filing fee or a proper IFP application—under a new docket number 2; therefore IT IS, on this 7th day of May 2024, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP Application is DENIED. This matter will remain closed. SO ORDERED. /s/ Susan D. Wigenton SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J. Orig: Clerk cc: Leda Wettre, U.S.M.J. Parties 2 It appears that the Amended Complaint principally asks this Court to order Essex County courts and agencies “to nullify, dismiss and/or close [the] (alleged) child support case, cease and desist any further communication and/or correspondence referencing [the] child support enforcement case . . . compelling [Plaintiff] (under threat, duress, and coercion) to make” child support payments. (Id. at 3). However, “[c]ourts in this Circuit overwhelmingly abstain[] under the Younger doctrine when faced with [such] challenges.” Frederick of Family Gonora v. Risch, No. 23-893, 2023 WL 8271932, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2023) (collecting cases); see also Gittens v. Kelly, 790 F. App’x 439, 441 (3d Cir. 2019) (“To the extent that the state court proceeding regarding Gittens’ child support obligations were ongoing, the District Court properly invoked the Younger abstention doctrine.”). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
