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 Thir d C ir c uit
4-16-2009 

# Thom a s T el f air v . Kare n T andy P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4663

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova 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 b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Thom as T

e l fair v . K ar e n T a ndy " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1438. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1438P 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 os . 07- 3859, 08- 4663, 09- 1162

_____________ DA NA M
. PORTER

v. DEP T. OF T HE T REAS URY

* M I CH AE L BU E S GE NS A ppel l anti n N o. 07- 3859

* (P u rs u a n t to R u le 1 2 (a ), F .R .A .P .)
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 r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 01541) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B ruce W
. K auff m an
T O M M IE H . T E L F A IR , A ppel l anti n N o. 08- 4663

v. K A R E N P. T A N D Y , A dm i ni s t r at or - D rug E nfor cement2 A dm i ni s t r at i on; G E R A R D P. M C A L E E R , D i r ect or/ Seni or O ffi cer - D E A : N ew ark; 1- 50 U N K N O W N D E A A G E N T S; 1- 5 0 UNKNO WN F E DE RA L AGE NT S ; RA Y M CC AR T HY, C h i e f o f P o l i c e , N e w a r k ; M U R A D M U H A M M E D , R o b e r t yHo mi c i d e , OI C Ne wa r k P o l i c e ; 1
- 5 0 UNK NOW N POL I CE O FFICE R S; PA U L W
. B E R G R I N , Pr i vat e A t t or ney - D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey ; C H R I ST O PH E R C H R I ST Y , A U SA
- D i s tr i ct

of N ew J er s ey
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 0731) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M ar t i ni
J E W E L P O W E L L ; W I N S T O N P O W E L L a / k / a T O MMY

P O W E L L , et. a l.

v. VI OL E T O. M AHAB I R; L OR I NG W. S E WER ; M AR I L YN E. W OOD LE Y; I RVI N A. S EWER; EARL A. S EWER; W AR REN A. SEW ER; LUC I ND A C
. AN THO NY ; J UD I TH

O. CALL W OOD ; LORRE L A. S EWER, A ppel l ant s i n N o. 09- 1162

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 00083)3 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R aym ond J
. Fi nch

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27 and I
. O
. P. 10 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2009)
Susa n R
. B ecke r , E s q. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ou nself

or App el l ee D epa rtm ent of T reasury J eff r eyB
. M oor ehea d, E s q. 1132 K i ng St r eet C hr i s t i ans t ed, V I 00820 C ouns el f orAppel l ees Jewel lP ow el land W i ns t on P o w e ll, a /k/a / T

o m my P o w e ll Susa n B
. M oor ehea d, E s q. H enryC
. Sm ock, E s q. N o. 11A N or r e G ade P. O
. B ox 1498 St
. T hom as , V I 00804 Co u n s e lf

o rAp p e l l a n t s V i o l e tO. Ma h a b i r, L o r i n gW. S e we r, M

a r i l y n E. Woo d l e

y , I r v i n A. S e we r, Ea r lA. S e w e r, W

a rr e n A . Se w e r, L u c in da C . A n th o ny , Ju d ith O

. C al lw ood and Lorr el A

. Sew er M i chae l B ues gens D ana M
. Por t er T h o m a s T e lf

a ir P r ocee di ng P r o Se4 OP I NI ON
S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge
. W e have cons ol i dat ed fordeci s i on t h ree cas es that pr es entques t i ons r egar di ng paym ent o f the fees r equi r ed by Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e P r ocedur e 3(e ) fori ni t i at i ng an appe al i n t h i s Cou r t
. Two o f t h e c a s e s i n v o l v e a p p e l l a n t s s e e k i ng t he return o f th eir fil ing an d d o ck eti n g fe es up o n th e v o lun tary di s m i s s al of thei rappea l s . T he thi r d cas e conc erns an appe l l ant w ho s eeks a w ai verof the fi l ing and docke t i ng fee s undert he P ri s o n L itig a tio n R e f

o rm A c t o f

1 9 9 5 (“ P L R A ” ), 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (b). I
. P ort er v. D ep’tof the T reasury , C
. A
. N o . 0 7 -3 8 5 9
. In A pr i l 2007, D ana Por t er , a form er em pl oy ee of t he I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce ( “I R S”) i n Ph i l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a, fi l ed an empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on l aw s ui tagai ns tt he D epart m entof t he Tre as ur y . A ppel l antM i chae l B ues gens , a Texas r es i dentand f o rm e r e m p lo y e e o f th e IR S ’s A u stin , T e x a s d iv isio n , m o v e d to i nt ervene i n and j oi n Por t er ’ s cas e, al l egi ng that the I R S had d iscri m inated ag ains t him d u e to a d isab il ity . T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed thes e mot i ons as w el l as t hos e t hatB ues gens su b seq u en tl yfil ed
. B u esg en s ap p ea led f r om the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e rs; h o w e v e r, h e n o w se e k s to d ism iss h is ap p e a l p u rsu a n t to F ederal R ule of A pp el l at e P rocedu re 42(b). H e al so request s a re f u n d o f th e $ 4 5 5 f

ilin g a n d d o c k e tin g f

e e s th a t h e p a id
.5 P o w e ll, e t a l. v . Ma h a b ir, e t a l. , C
. A
. N o. 09- 1162. J ew el and W i ns t on Pow el l appea l ed fr om a j udgm ent of the Super i or C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands t o t he A ppel l at e D ivi s i on of the D is tr ic t C o u r t o f

th e V ir g in Is la n d s . See 48 U
. S. C
. § 1613a (p ro v id in g th e A p p e llate D iv is io n o f th e D istric t C o u rt w ith j ur i s di cti o n to r evi ew fi nal or der s of the Super i orC our tof the V ir g in Island s). T h e o rd e r in q u e stio n h e ld th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ( V i ol etM ahabi rand other s , her ei naft er“M ah abi rappel l ant s ”) had proved t heir ow nershi p of cert ai n real propert y byadv ers e pos s es s i on. O n D ece m ber 9, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr emanded th e c a s e to th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . O n Ja n u a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , th r o u g h c o u n se l, th e M a h a b ir appel l ant s appea l ed fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand pai d t he $455 fi l i ng and docke t i ng fee s . Soon t her eaf t er , the C ler k of th is C o u r t a d v ise d th e p a rties th a t th e a p p e a l w a s s u b jec t to di s m i s s al beca us e i t appea r ed t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or derw as n o t f in a l o r o th e rw ise a p p e a lab le a t th is tim e . T h e M a h a b ir appel l ant s now as k us t o di s m i s s thei r appea l underR ul e 42( b) and r efund thei r paym entof the fi l i ng and docke t i ng fee s . T he M ahabi rappel l ant s expl ai n t hatt heyfi led thei rappea l i n an “abunda nce of

caut i on, ” butt hat , “af t err evi ew i ng per t i nent j udi ci al pr ece dent s , ” theybeca m e aw ar e that t he or derw as not a f in a l d e c isio n a n d n o w w ish to w ith d ra w th e ir a p p e a l “to c o n s e rv e ju d ic ia l r e s o u rc e s .” Tel f air v. Tandy , C
. A
. N o. 08- 4663. I n J anuary2008, fede r al pr i s onerT om m i e Tel fai rfil ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t for t he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey an ac t i on pur s uant t o 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983 and B i vens v. Si x U nknow n Fed. N

ar cot i cs A g e n ts , 403 U
. S. 388 ( 1971) , al l egi ng t hat h i s cons t i tut i onal ri gh t s w ere v io late d. T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed T el fai r’ s fi rs t6 m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p au pe ris (“IF P ”) and a d m in istra ti v e ly clo se d h is c a se . In M a rc h 2 0 0 8 , T e lf a ir su b m itt e d a se c o n d IF P a p p lica tio n w ith a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. H e p aid th e f

u ll fil ing fe e in A p ri l 20 0 8
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed hi s I FP appl i cat i on, di r ect ed the C l erk to reopen the cas e, and r evi ew ed the ca s e pur s uant t o 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1915( e) ( 2) and 1915A
. B yor derent er ed O ct ober21, 2008, t he D istr i ct Cou r t d i s mi s s e d t h e a c t i o n i n p a r t a n d d i r e c t e d t hat t he com plai nt be served up on t he rem ai ning def end ants
. T el fai rhas appea l ed fr om t hator der
. T he C l erk has advi s ed hi m t hatw e mayl ack j ur i s di ct i on overt he appe al under F ederal R ule of C iv i l P rocedu re 54(b). T el fai r now request s a w ai verof the $455 fi l i ng and docketing fee s bas ed on hi s l ack o f f u n d s a n d h is b e lief

th a t h e o n lyh a d to p a ya f e e to c o m m e n c e th e a c tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt a n d th a t n o se p a ra te fee w as r equi r ed fort hi s appea l
. T el fai rhas notfi l ed the aff i davi tand otherfor m s t hatar e r equi r ed t o p roc eed I FP on a p p e a l. II. T he court s of appe al ar e author i zed t o char ge fee s by28 U
. S. C
. § 1913. T he amount s of s uch fe es ar e det erm i ned byt he J udi ci al C onfer ence of t he U ni t ed St at es and s et fort h in t he M i s cel l aneous Fee Schedul e w hi ch fol l ow s § 1913. I t em one of the s chedul e pr es cr i bes a fe e of $450 “ fordocket i ng a ca s e on a p p e a l o rr e v i e w o rd o c k e t i n g a n yo t h e rp r o c e e d i n g . ” An addit iona l fee of $5 i s char ged byt he di s t r i ctcour t“upon the fi l i ng of any
. . . not i ce of appea l
. . . . ” 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1917. A c c o r d in g ly , the f

e e f o r d o c k e tin g a n a p p e a l is $ 4 5 5 , w h ich is pai d t o t he di s t r i ctcour t
. A s t he name i m pl i es , t he fe e i s for7 d o c k e tin g , o r o p e n in g , th e c a s e . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 ( e ) ( An appel l ant“mustpayt h e d istr i ctcl erk al l r equi r ed fe es ” upon fi l i ng a not i ce of

appea l
. )
. I n addi t i on t o cover i ng s om e of the cos t s as s oci at ed w i t h openi ng a ca s e, t hes e fi xed fee s al s o s erve to d eter the fil ing o f f ri v o lou s ap p ea ls an d u n n ec essa ry
“ p ro te c tiv e ” a p p e a ls
. See I n r e Anders on , 511 U
. S. 364, 365- 66 (1 9 9 4 ) ( n o tin g th a t “ f

ilin g f e e s a n d a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . . . d e te r . .

. l i t i gant s fr om fi l i ng fr i vol ous pet i t i ons ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itt e d ); Leonar d v. Lacy , 88 F
. 3d 181, 185 ( 2d C i r . 1996) (sta tin g th a t C o n g re ss ’s o b jec tiv e in e n a c tin g th e P L R A w a s to “mak [ e ] a l l p r i s o n e r s s e e k i n g t o b r i n g l a ws u i t s o r a p p e a l s fee l t he det err ent eff

ect cr eat ed byl i abi l i t yforfi l i ng fee s ”)
. I n l i ght of the purpos es behi nd t hes e fees, i ti s nots urpr i s i ng t hatt he Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e P r ocedur e i ncl ude no pr ovi s i on for th e irre tu rn . W e a re n o t th e f

irst c o u rt to b e c o n f

ro n ted w ith re q u e sts t o r e tu r n f

e e s u p o n t h e v o l u n t a r yd i s mi s s a l o f a n a p p e a l
. At l eas tt w o of ours i s t erci rcui t s have publ i s hed opi ni ons ad d ressing the issu e, a n d b o th h av e d eterm ined that v o lun tary di s m i s s al does notent i t l e the appel l ant t o a re fund of t he fi l i ng an d d o ck eti n g fe e s . See W ill ia m s v . R o b e rts , 116 F. 3d 1126, 1127 ( 5t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) (F ees ar e “a s s es s ed fort he pr i vi l ege of i ni t i at i ng an ap p e a l , w i t houtr egar d t o t he s ubs equentdi s pos i t i on o f th e m att er.”); G oins v. D ecaro , 2 4 1 F
. 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 (2 d C ir. 2001) ( “[F] ee- pay i ng l i t i gant s have no opportu n it yt o obt ai n a re fun d of their fi l i ng fees i n the event t hat t hey w i t hd raw th e ir a p p e a ls .” ). See al

s o Thurm an v. G r am l ey , 9 7 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 7 (7 th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ) ( over r ul ed on othergr ounds b y W alkerv. O ’

B r i en , 216 F. 3d 626 ( 7t h C i r . 2000) ) ( “A s ol vent l i t i gant m us t payt he f ili n g a n d d o c k e tin g f

e e s f o r th e p riv ileg e o f

in iti a tin g a n a p p e a l; d ism iss a l o n ju risd ic ti o n a l g ro u n d s d o e s n o t lea d th e c o u rt toT her e i s no r eas on t o denyt he mot ion s t o di s m i s s t he 1 appea l s , as t he appel l ees w i l l not be burde ned byt he di s m i s s al o f th e s e a p p e a ls
. See I

n r e P en n C en t. Trans

p. C o. , 630 F. 2d 1 8 3 , 1 8 9
- 9 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 0 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g s t a n d a r d f o rg r a n t i ng m o tio n s f

o r v o lu n tar yd ism iss a l); F ED . R. A PP . P . 4 2 (b ). T h e M a h a b i r app el l ants i nd i ca te th a t, i n a d d iti o n to 2 re q u e stin g th e re tu rn o f th e ir f e e s, th e ya r e w ith d ra w in g th e ir appea l t o cons erve j u d ici al r es our ces . T hi s expr es s i on of al t rui s m as i de, t hei r w i t hdr aw al of t he appeal att hi s s t age doe s n o t c o n serv e jud ici al reso u rce s. A s ex p lai n ed ab o v e, co u rt re s o u rc e s to w h ic h th e f e e s a re d ir e c te d , i
. e. , openi ng t he ca s e, have a l r eadybeen e xpended. W e have al s o al r eadyexpende d addi t i onal cour tr es our ces t o s cr een t he appeal and t o not i fyt he par t i es t hat w e m ay not have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct 8 r efund the appe l l ant ’ s m oney . ”)
. W e concl ude l i kew i s e. I ti s of no cons equenc e w hetheran appe al is v o l unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed, di s m i s s ed due t o a j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct , ordi s m i s s ed on the m er i t s
— appel l ant s ar e notent i t l ed t o t he r eturn o f t hei rfi l i ng a n d d o c k e tin g f

e e s . P ort er, w ho proceed s pro se, and t he M ahab i r appel l ants , w ho are r epresent ed b ycou nsel , hav e m ov ed to voluntar i ly d ism iss the ir ap p ea ls u n d er F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 42( b)
. U pon t he fi l i ng of thei rappea l s , t heypai d t he r equi r ed f ili n g a n d d o c k e tin g f

e e s a n d d id n o t c la im in d ig e n c e . T h e ir b e lief th a t v o lu n tar yd ism iss a l o f th e ir a p p e a ls e n tit les th e m to th e re tu rn o f

th e f ili n g a n d d o c k e tin g f e e s b e tra y s th e ir fundament al m i s under s t andi ng of t he af or ement i oned purpos es of the fe es . A ccor di ngl y , w hi l e w e w i l l gr antM ahabir ’s and P o rte r’s m o tio n s to w ith d ra w th e ir a p p e a ls, w e w ill d e n yth e ir 1 r eques t s forr etur n o f the fil i ng and docke t i ng fee s t heyhave pai d. 2C o u rt ’s ord er. W e n o te th a t th e g ra n tin g o f IF P sta tu s e x e m p ts liti g a n ts 3 f ro m f ili n g f e e s o n ly . It d o e s n o t ex e m p t li tig a n ts f ro m th e c o sts of copy i ng and fi l i ng document s ; s ervi ce of document s ot her t han t he com plai nt; cost s, 28 U
. S
. C
. § 19 15 (f) (1) ; exp ertw i t ness f e e s , B or i ng v. Koz aki ew i cz , 833 F. 2d 468 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 8 7) ; or s a n c tio n s . 9 A ppel l antT el fai r d oes notr eques tt he r etur n of fe es he has paid; rather, he asks u s t o w ai ve h i s not- y et -pai d fee s, cl ai m i ng t hat he cannot aff or d t o pay t hem and thathe bel i eved t hathe w as onl y r equi r ed t o paya fe e t o i ni t i at e hi s cas e i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t
. I n ci vi l cas es , w e have t he author i t y t o w ai ve the pr epaym entof fi l i ng fee s if t he appe l l anti s i ndi gentand the P L R A do es not apply
. 28 U
. S .C . § 1 9 15 (a)
. T el fai r i s a 3 p ri s o n e r w h o s e a p p e a l is g o v e rn e d b yth e P L R A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (b). A l t hough a pr i s onerm ayobt ai n I FP st atus undert he P L R A , this d o e s n o t re su lt i n a w a iv e r o f th e f e e s— it m e re ly all o w s the inm ate t o p aythe f ee s in install m en ts w h en there are s u f f ic ie n t f u n d s in h is p ri s o n a c c o u n t. Id

. T h u s, e v e n if T e lf a ir obt ai ns I FP st atus , w e have no author i t y t o w ai ve hi s fee s under t h e P L RA
. F u r t h e r mo r e , d e s p i t e Te l f a i r ’ s b e l i e f

, t h e P LRA p lain lyrequi res a pri soner t o p ayt he fe es i f he “ bri ng s a civ il act i on orf

i l es an appeal

. . . . ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915( b) ( 1) (em p h asis ad d ed ). F o r th ese rea s o n s, w e w il l den yT elfa ir ’s m o ti o n fo r a f

ee w aive r. III
. P o rte r’s a n d th e M a h a b ir a p p e llan ts’ m o tio n s to w ith d ra w th e ir a p p e a ls u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f A p p e llate Pr ocedur e 42( b) ar e gr ant ed. T hei rm ot i ons fort he r etur n ofW e emphas i ze that , once the C our t has gr ant ed a pr i s oner 4 l eave t o pr ocee d I FP i n an appe al g o v ern ed byt he PL R A , t he p ri s o n e r i s o b lig a te d to p a yth e f e e s in f u ll. 10 t hei rfi l i ng and docke t i ng fee s ar e deni ed. T el fai r ’ s m ot i on fo r w aive r of

the f il ing an d d o ck eti n g fe es is d en ied. If T el fai rw i s hes t o pr ocee d w i t h hi s appea l , he mustpayt he r e q u i r e d f

e e s o rf i l e a m o t i o n t o p r o c e e d I F P w i t h i n t w e n t yone day s of the dat e of thi s opi ni on. I f Tel fai rdoes notpay t he fe es orfi l e a mot i on t o pr ocee d I FP hi s appea l w i l l be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o pays uch fe es . 3d C i r . L
. A
. R
. 3. 3 and 2 4 .2 a n d L .A .R . M isc . 1 0 7 .1 (2 0 0 8 ). In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is 4 o p inion , the C lerk o f th is C o u rtis au tho ri ze d to d en yfu ture m ot i ons t o r etur n ort o w ai ve appe l l at e fi l i ng and docke t i ng f e e s .