A federal complaint has been filed challenging the New Jersey Appellate Division’s refusal to waive transcript fees for indigent litigants, arguing that this practice creates an unconstitutional barrier to appellate review and threatens the dismissal of pending appeals. The plaintiffs allege that the court’s actions violate both state rules and longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent, raising questions about access to justice for those unable to pay required court costs.
The complaint was filed on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Angel Lopez and Kazue Koizumi against several officials in their official capacities: the Clerk of the New Jersey Appellate Division, the Presiding Judge for Administration of the Appellate Division, the Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts, and unnamed John Doe defendants.
According to court documents, Angel Lopez filed a timely appeal in the New Jersey Appellate Division on December 15, 2025. His appeal was consolidated with that of Kazue Koizumi, who is described as an indigent co-appellant unable to afford transcript fees. Both Lopez and Koizumi submitted sworn certifications of indigency; however, while Lopez’s transcripts were paid for by counsel, Koizumi could not obtain hers due to lack of funds.
On December 15, 2025, both plaintiffs moved for transcripts at public expense. The Appellate Division denied this motion on February 3, 2026, stating it “does not have the authority” to provide transcripts at public expense except in narrow categories not applicable here. The order further warned that if transcripts were not ordered by February 6, 2026, “the appeal shall be dismissed without further notice.”
In response, Lopez moved on February 6, 2026 to sever his appeal so he could proceed independently with his own transcripts. This request was denied by the Appellate Division on March 5, 2026. The court reaffirmed its earlier position that unless all required transcripts were provided—including those unaffordable by Koizumi—the consolidated appeal would be dismissed automatically on March 21, 2026 without further notice or opportunity for hearing.
The plaintiffs’ complaint outlines two central constitutional questions: whether a state may extinguish appellate rights solely because an indigent litigant cannot afford trial transcripts despite state rules requiring waiver of such fees; and whether one co-litigant’s inability to pay can justify dismissing another’s appeal in a consolidated matter. Citing Supreme Court cases Griffin v. Illinois (1956), Mayer v. Chicago (1971), and M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996), they argue that conditioning access to appellate review on payment ability is prohibited under federal law.
The filing also references specific New Jersey rules—Rule 1:13-2(a) and Rule 2:7-1—which require waiver of “any fees… payable to any court or public officer” and “the deposit for costs,” including transcript fees historically considered part of these costs. Plaintiffs assert that refusing to treat transcript fees as waivable contradicts both state law and constitutional protections under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
Plaintiffs contend that denying severance while refusing a fee waiver creates what they call a “procedural trap” guaranteeing dismissal based solely on poverty—a situation they describe as arbitrary and lacking rational basis given Lopez’s readiness to proceed independently with all necessary materials already obtained.
Three counts are alleged in the complaint: violation of due process under Section 1983; violation of equal protection under Section 1983; and ultra vires action under New Jersey law—arguing that lower courts lack authority to rewrite or restrict rules established by the state Supreme Court regarding fee waivers for indigent appellants.
The relief sought includes injunctions preventing dismissal of their consolidated appeal; orders requiring waiver or provision of transcripts at public expense for Koizumi; permission for Lopez’s independent appeal if necessary; declarations clarifying that transcript fees fall within waivable categories under state rules; recognition that refusal violates constitutional rights; and any additional relief deemed just by the court.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs are Eldridge Hawkins LLC (Attorney Id: 214731967) located at East Orange, NJ; Cecile D. Portilla LLC (Attorney Id:021212005) also based in East Orange; with Cecile D. Portilla certifying under penalty of perjury as required by law on March 21, 2026. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-02950.
