KEEFE v. NJ DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, 3:18-cv-07597

Pro se plaintiff Ronald D. Keefe submitted a civil complaint (filed Apr 13, 2018) but initially did not include a filing fee or in forma pauperis (IFP) application; administrative error delayed notice that the complaint was not filed.
On June 12, 2018 Keefe filed an IFP application showing $893 in a checking account, a 2000 Nissan Maxima, and $1,415/month in SSD benefits with roughly $1,200/month in expenses.
The complaint largely repeats allegations and documentary submissions from prior suits (Civ. Nos. 91-4734, 15-8584, 17-1334) and recounts events dating back to the 1980s, including divorce/custody losses and alleged misconduct by public officials.
Keefe alleges selective prosecution, false incarceration, verbal abuse, and denial of opportunity to defend in state domestic-violence proceedings, but provides few dates and unclear factual detail.
Many named individuals in the narrative are not listed as defendants in the current pleading; the Court could not discern a coherent, pleaded cause of action.
The Court granted IFP status but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and gave Keefe 30 days leave to file an amended complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)	Keefe submitted an affidavit of indigence showing minimal assets and monthly income roughly equal to expenses.	No opposing argument in the record.	Court found Keefe sufficiently indigent and granted IFP.
Sufficiency of complaint / failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard)	Keefe alleges civil-rights violations (selective prosecution, false incarceration, denial of defense) across many events but provides imprecise dates and an incoherent narrative.	No defendants filed responses; Court evaluated sufficiency sua sponte under §1915(e)(2)(B).	Complaint dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; plaintiff allowed 30 days to amend.
Claim preclusion / repetitive filing of previously asserted claims	Keefe reasserted substantially the same allegations and documents from prior cases.	Court noted prior similar filings and that leave to amend had been given previously without success.	Court dismissed because claims could not be distilled; leave to amend again for a limited period.

Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990) (two-step inquiry for IFP: financial eligibility and merits review under §1915).
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally).
Schreane v. Seana, [citation="506 F. App'x 120"] (3d Cir. 2012) (review under §1915(e)(2)(B) applies the Rule 12(b)(6) standard).