2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 6-25-2009 

# In Re: M a c T

ruong P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3365

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: M a c T

r uon g " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1130. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1130B L D - 212 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3365

___________ I N R E : M AR YS E M AC T RU ONG a n d M AC T RU ONG, D e b t o r s M ac Truong,

A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- 02932) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sus an D . W i gent on

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 11, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 25, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M ac T ruong app eal s fr om the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order deny i ng , am on g o ther things,W e in c o rp o ra te h e re in a f ter th e f a c ts a n d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se a s s e t f

o rth in 1 ouropi ni on di s pos i ng of Truong’ s r el at ed appe al , I n r e Truong, C A N o. 08- 3365. 2 hi s m ot i on t o r eopen hi s bankrupt cyappea l . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad i ni t i al l ydi s m i s s ed 1 the appe al forfai l ur e t o des i gnat e the r ecor d on appea l and forfai l ur e t o paythe r equi r ed fil ing fe es. T ruo n g then m o v ed to reo p en h is ap p ea l, p roc ee d in f o rm a p au p eris (“IF P ”), a n d sta yp ro c e e d in g s “ p e n d in g a d ju d ica tio n o f

o th e r re late d a p p e a ls.” T h e D istric t C o u rt, w hi l e notaddr es s i ng the I FP m ot i on di r ect l y , deni ed r el i ef a nd not ed thatthe B ankrupt cy C o u rt h a d n o t g ra n ted IF P sta tu s, n o r h a d T ru o n g p a id th e re q u ire d f ili n g f e e s. T h is appea l fol l ow ed. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n ial o f T ru o n g ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d IF P , d ism iss a l f o r f a ilu re to p a yf

e e s a n d m o tio n to r eopen hi s appea l forabus e of di s cr et i on. See M ax’ s Seafood Café e x r el . L ou A nn, I nc. v. Q ui nt er os , 176 F. 3d 669, 673 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; J ones v. Z i m m erm an, 752 F. 2d 76, 78 ( 3d Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) . Ha v i n g g r a n t e d T ru o n g l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n f o r ma p a u p e r i s o n a p p e a l , we m u st d ism iss h is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i) if it i s f riv o lo u s, i.e., i f

it h as n o arg u ab le ba sis i n law . S ee N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). I FP det erm i nat i ons ar e t o be made s ol el yon the bas i s of i ndi gence . See D eut s ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 67 F. 3d 1080, 1084 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ; R om an v. J eff es , 904 F. 2d 192, 194 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . I n the I FP appl i cat i on thatT ruong s ubm i t t ed t o the D i s tr i ctC our t , he in d ica ted th a t h e h a d re n tal in c o m e o f $ 3 0 0 0 a m o n th , tw o c a rs ( th o u g h o n e h a d its “ tit leT he I R A acc ount ’ s w or th has appar ent l ydr opped by$2000 s i nce Truong l as tappl i ed 2 for I F P st atus. in lit ig a tio n ” ), “le ss th a n $ 5 0 0 a v e ra g e ” in a b a n k a c c o u n t, an d a n IR A a c c o u n t w o rth $ 6 0 0 0 . G iv e n th a t in f

o rm a tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its 2 dis cret i on w hen i tdis m i ssed T ruong ’s app eal and den i ed h i s subsequ ent m oti on s. A c c o rd in g ly , the a p p e a l is d e v o id o f leg a l m e rit an d w e w ill d ism iss it p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ).