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 3-25-2009 

# Mindy Z ied-C ampb ell v

. Es t elle R ichm an, et P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2254

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . 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 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 b y an author i 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 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mindy Z ie d -C amp bell v

. Es t elle R ichm an, e t " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1694. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1694NOT 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- 2254

___________ M IN D Y J A Y E Z IE D -C A M P B E L L , A ppel l ant v. E ST E L L E R I C H M A N , Secr et ary , Penns y l vani a D epart m entof Publ i c W el far e; FR E D E R I C K L A N D A U , D i r ect or , T he Y or k C ount yA s s i s t ance O ffi ce; D O E S 1- 25; ST E PH A N I E L U D W I G , Super vi s or , Y or k C ount yA s s i s t ance O ffi ce

____________________________________ 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 M id d le 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. 04- cv- 00026) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 10, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 25, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M in d yJa y e Z ied -C a m p b e ll, p ro c e e d in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris, f

iled a law su it t o pr ot es thow s he w as t r eat ed w hen s he tr i ed t o s ecur e w el far e bene fi t s . T he namedZ i ed- C ampbel l fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on 1 February26, 2008. Z i ed- C ampbel l then fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the Februr ary26, 2008 or der/ a s econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the M ar ch 30, 2007 o rd e r. W h e n th e d e f

e n d a n ts o p p o se d th e m o tio n /se c o n d m o tio n , Z ied -C a m p b e ll m o v e d to s t r i ke thei rbr i ef. O n A pr i l 23, 2008, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on/ s econd mot i on a n d th e m o tio n to s tr ik e . PA C E R , an ac r onym forPubl i c A cce s s t o E l ectr oni c R ecor ds , i s the s ervi ce that 2 pr ovi des el ectr oni c ac ces s vi a the I nt ernett o cas e and doc keti nform at i on fr om the fe der al c o u rt s . 2 defe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on forj udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed i n par tand deni ed i n parton M ar ch 30, 2007. T heys ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on for 1 s um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch r emai ns pendi ng. O n Z i ed- C ampbel l ’ s m ot i on, the D i s t r i ct C o u rt c a se is s tayed p e n d in g th is a p p e a l. In th e D istric t C o u rt, Z ied -C a m p b e ll file d a m o tio n to w a iv e P A C E R f e e s “ d u e to i ndi gency[s i c] . ” She cl ai m ed thats he nee ded ac ces s t o t he document s i n hercas e on the 2 d o ck et be ca u se sh e w as n o lon g er rep rese n ted b yap p o inted co u n sel. T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed herm ot i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o a r enew ed mot i on i n w hi ch s he s how ed good caus e fort he w ai verof fe es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatZ i ed- C ampbel l s houl d have r ece i ved copi es of the r el evantdocument s i n hercas e, and thats he had noti dent i fi ed w hi ch document s s he l acke d ors t at ed w hethers he had r eques t ed hercas e fi l e fr om her att o rne y . T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso stat ed that itco u ld n o t eva luate f rom Z ied-C am p b ell ’s s hor tm ot i on w hethert her e w er e al t ernat i ve means of pr ovi di ng Z i ed- C ampbel l w i t h the document s s he w ant ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned thatZ i ed- C ampbel l coul d r efi l e her m o tio n w ith a b ri e f

a n d p ro p e r e v id e n tia ry su p p o rt .3

Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , Z i ed- C ampbel l fi l ed a r enew ed mot i on forthe w ai verof PA C E R fee s , expandi ng herr eques tt o i ncl ude fr ee a cce s s t o t he document s i n hercas e as w el l as anyot hercas es t hatar e r el evantt o hercas e. She l i s t ed the i nform at i on that enti t l ed h er t o in form a pau peri s st atus. S he ex plai ned that s he m ov ed from H arr i sburg so s he coul d no l ongergo t o t he H arr i s bur g l i br arythathas W es t l aw acc es s and s he ca nnot aff or d gas fort he 20 t o 30 m i l e tr i p t o l i br ar i es i n Phi l adel phi a orthe ( uns peci fi ed) fee s at t hos e l i br ar i es . Z i ed- C ampbel l al s o not ed herconfus i on w hi l e doi ng r es ear ch atthe H arr i s bur g l i br aryand herbel i ef thats he coul d bes tdo r es ear ch athom e betw een the hour s of m i dni ghtand fouri n t he morni ng. She s t at ed thats he w oul d l i ke t o s ee c as es a c c e s s ib le o n P A C E R th a t m ig h t h e lp h e r s u c c e e d in h e r c a s e . O n A p ri l 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d Z ie d -C a m p b e ll’ s re n e w e d m o tio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed aga i n t hats he had noti dent i fi ed w hi ch document s ( i f any ) fr om h e r c a s e s h e d id n o t h a v e o r w h e th e r s h e h a d re q u e s te d h e r c a s e f ile f ro m h e r a tto rn e y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed Zi ed- C ampbel l ’ s des i r e t o have a m or e conve ni entand eff ect i ve w ayt o conductl egal r es ear ch as good caus e fora w ai verof PA C E R fee s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tacknow l edged thatZ i ed- C ampbel l m ayfac e di ffi cul t i es i n pur s ui ng her cas e pr o s e, butconcl uded ( ci t i ng t he El ectr oni c Fee A cce s s Schedul e) thats he had not sh o w n th a t a f

e e w a iv e r w a s “ n e c e ss a ryto a v o id u n re a so n a b le b u rd e n s a n d to p ro m o te publ i c ac ces s t o i nform at i on. ” Z i ed- C ampbel l fi l ed a not i ce of appea l . She s peci fi ed the A pr i l 23, 2008 or derand4

s t at ed thats he w as appea l i ng fr om the deni al of herm ot i on t o w ai ve PA C E R fee s . She at t ache d t he or der , herm ot i on, herear l i erm ot i on t o w ai ve PA C E R fee s , and a l et t er re q u e stin g a w a iv e r o f

th e f e e s. S h e su b se q u e n tlyf iled a n a m e n d e d n o tice o f a p p e a l to at t ach a copyof a mot i on forr econs i der at i on s he had f i l ed pr evi ous l y( appar ent l yt o s how

“ in iti a l IF P sta tu s d e n ied e v e n th o u g h f o o d sta m p d o c u m e n t h a d b e e n a ttac h e d o rig in a lly as p roo f o f in d igen ce , ” A m en d ed N o ti ce o f A p p ea l 1.) O u r f irst q u e stio n , o n e w h ich w e a sk e d th e p a rties to a d d re ss in th e ir b rie f s, is w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l . Z i ed- C ampbel l cont ends thatw e have juri sd ict ion o v er h er a p p ea l, w h ich s h e d esc ri b es a s en co m p assin g ch all en g es to m o re or der s t han s he des i gnat ed i n hernot i ce of appea l . Speci fi cal l y , s he ci t es the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s ord ers o f M arc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , F eb rua ry2 6 , 2 0 0 8 (th e o n e n o ted a b o v e a n d o thers), and A pr i l 23, 2008. A ppel l ees ar gue thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on onl yt o r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C ou rt ’s decis i on t o d enyt he w ai ver of P A C E R fees, and requestthat w e dis m i ss the rest o f Z ie d -C a m p b e ll’ s a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . D es pi t e Zi ed- C ampbel l ’ s di s cus s i on of m anyor der s i n herbr i ef, ourfocus r emai ns on t he deni al of herr eques tfora w ai verof the PA C E R fee s . She di d notl i s tthe other o rd e rs f ro m w h ich sh e n o w se e k s to a p p e a l in h e r n o tice o f a p p e a l in c o m p lian c e w ith R ul e 3 of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 3( c) ( 1) ( B ) . She s peci fi ed one or derbyr efe r r i ng t o i tbydat e, docketnum ber , the mot i on s he had f i l ed, an d related d o cu m en tat ion sh e h ad su b m itted to the D istri ct C o u rt . A lth o u g h the C o u rtFur t herm or e, even i f Zi ed- C ampbel l ’ s not i ce of appea l w er e s uffi ci entt o br i ng up t he 3 uns peci fi ed or der s , w e w oul d s t i l l l ack j ur i s di ct i on overthem. T he otheror der s thatZ i edC ampbel l di s cus s ed i n herbr i ef a r e notappea l abl e unt i l the D i s t r i ctC our tent er s a fi nal j udgm enti n hercas e. See I n r e K el l y , 876 F. 2d 14, 15 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng thatan o rd e r d e n y in g lea v e to a m e n d a c o m p lain t is n o t a f in a l an d im m e d iate lya p p e a lab le or der ) ; M cN as byv. C r ow n, C or k & Seal C o. , 832 F. 2d 47, 49 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( hol di ng t hat a n o rd e r d e n y in g a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t is n o t an im m e d iate lya p p e a lab le or der ) ; I n r e G l enn W . T ur nerE nt erpr i s es L i t i g. , 521 F. 2d 775, 781 ( 3d C i r . 1975) (hol ding t hat pr e-tri al orders are i nter l ocu t oryand no ti m m ediat el yapp eal able) ; see al so B el l A t l ant i c- Penns y l vani a, I nc. v. Pa. Pub. U t i l . C om m ' n, 273 F. 3d 337, 345 ( 3d C i r . Pa. 2001) ( not i ng t hatt he fa ctt hata def ens e w arr ant s pr e- t r i al di s m i s s al does notcontr ol w hethert he i s s ue i s i m m edi at el yappea l abl e) . Z i ed- C ampbel l s eeks t o char act er i ze one of th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e rs o f F e b ru a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , a s a n o rd e r d e n y in g a n in ju n c tio n . H ow ever , even a s s um i ng t he or dercan be char act er i zed a s one deny i ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef, ourj ur i s di ct i on w oul d notat t ach be caus e the i nj unct i ve r el i ef w as unr el at ed t o t he r el i ef s oughtbyZ i ed- C ampbel l i n hercas e, as the D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed. See H er s heyFoods C orp. v. H er s heyC r eamer yC o. , 945 F. 2d 1272, 1277 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( des cr i bi ng the r equi r ementt hatan i nt er l ocut or yor derdeny i ng an i nj unct i on m us tr el at e t o t he r el i ef ul t i m at el ys oughti n or dert o be appe al abl e under28 U . S. C . § 1292)

. 5 l i ber al l ycons t rues t he r equi r ement s of R ul e 3, s ee Pac i t t i v. M acy ’ s , 193 F. 3d 766, 776 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , Z i ed- C ampel l onl ydes i gnat ed the or derof A pr i l 23, 2008, a non- fi nal or der , i n hernot i ce of

appea l and heramended not i ce of appea l . A ccor di ngl y , thi s i s not t he ca s e i n w hi ch an a ppeal fr om a fi nal j udgm entput s i n ques t i on ear l i ernon- fi nal o rd e rs . S e e P a c itti, 1 9 3 F .3 d a t 7 7 6 -7 7 .

3 W e conc l ude thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe A pr i l 23, 2008 or derdeny i ng t he w ai verof PA C E R fee s . O r di nar i l y , forj ur i s di ct i on t o att ach unde r28 U . S. C . § 1291, t her e mustbe a D i s t r i ctC our tdeci s i on that“‘ ends the l i t i gat i on on t he mer i t s and l eave s not hi ng fort he courtt o do butexec ut e the j udgm ent . ’ ” See Cooper s & L ybr and v. L i ves ay , 437 U . S. 463, 467 ( 1978) ( quot i ng C at l i n v. U ni t ed St at es , 324 U . S. 299, 2336

(1 9 4 5 )). A ju d g m e n t m u st b e f in a l as to a ll p a rties , all c a u se s o f a c tio n , an d th e w h o le s ubj ect - m att er . See A ndr ew v. U ni t ed St at es , 373 U . S. 334, 340 ( 1963) ( ci t i ng C ol l i ns v. M i l l er , 252 U . S. 364 ( 1920) ) ; M el l on B ank, N . A . v. M etr o C om m uni cat i ons , I nc. , 945 F. 2d 635, 640 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . T he D i s t r i ctC our thas notfi nal l yadj udi cat ed Zi edC ampbel l ’ s cl ai m s . T he def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entr emai ns pendi ng. H o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r f its w ith in th e ju d icia llyc ra f ted e x c e p tio n to t he us ual fi nal j udgm entrul e. “To com e w i t hi n t he ‘ s m al l cl as s ’ of dec i s i ons exce pt ed f r o m t h e f i n a l - j u d g m e n tru l e b y C ohen , the or derm us tconcl us i vel ydet erm i ne the di s put ed ques t i on, r es ol ve an i m por t anti s s ue compl et el ys epar at e fr om the mer i t s of the act i on , and be ef

fect i velyun revi ew able on ap peal fr om a fi nal j ud gm ent. ” C oo pers & L yb ran d , 4 3 7 U . S . at 46 8 . A m o n g the d ec isi o n s h eld a p p ea lable u n d er C o h en are o rde rs deny i ng i n form a paupe r i s s t atus . See R ober t s v. U . S. D i s t . C our t , 339 U . S. 844, 845 ( 1950) ( percur i am); Si nw el l v. Shapp, 536 F. 2d 15, 16 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . T he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or deri s l i ke an or derdeny i ng i n form a paupe r i s s t atus beca us e i tr el at es t o a l i t i gant ’ s abi l i t yt o paycas e- r el at ed fe es and pr ocee d befor e a c our t . Forthe s ame r eas ons w e h a v e h e ld o rd e rs d e n y in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris m o tio n s to b e im m e d iate lya p p e a lab le u n d e r th e c o llate ra l o rd e r d o c trin e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e A p ril 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r is i m m edi at el yappea l abl e i n t hi s cas e. C f. D eut s ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 67 F. 3d 1080, 1083 (3 d C ir . P a . 1 9 9 5 ).T o ai d ourcons i der at i on of thi s appea l , eac h s i de has m oved t o fi l e a s uppl ement al 4 appendi x ( Z i ed- C ampbel l al s o has m oved t o s t r i ke A ppel l ees ’ pr opos ed s uppl ement al a p p e n d ix ). W e g ra n t A p p e llee s’ m o tio n to p ro v id e u s w ith a sh o rt su p p lem e n tal a p p e n d ix th a t in c lu d e s D istric t C o u rt o rd e rs th a t m a yh a v e b e e n o v e rlo o k e d b yZ ied -C a m p b e ll i n assem bli ng her l eng t hyapp end i x. W e den yZ i ed-C am pb el l ’s m oti on t o st ri ke. W e al so d e n ya s u n n e c e s s a ry h e r r e q u e s t to f ile a s u p p le m e n ta l a p p e n d ix . 7 U pon cons i der at i on of the A pr i l 23, 2008 or der , w e w i l l aff i r m i t . A l t hough

4 cour t s m ayal l ow i ndi gentl i t i gant s t o acc es s PA C E R w i t houtchar ge forcaus e s how n, s ee El ectr oni c Publ i c A cce s s Fee Schedul e ( r epr i nt ed w i t h 28 U . S. C . § 1914) , the D i s tr i ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n , cf. Jo n es v . Z im m erm an , 7 5 2 F . 2 d 7 6 , 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (s tatin g th e sta n d a rd o f re v iew f o r o rd e rs d e n y in g in f

o rm a p a u p e ris m o tio n s), in r ej ect i ng Z i ed- C ampbel l ’ s br oad r eques tforacc es s t o PA C E R s o t hats he coul d s ee the document s fi l ed i n hercas e as w el l as conductl egal r es ear ch fr om hom e i n t he mi ddl e of t he ni ght . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, i tw as notcl earw hatdocument s fr om hercas e s he di d nothave ( t he D i s t r i ctC our thavi ng pr evi ous l ypr ovi ded copi es of or der s and opi ni ons t o the part i es as w el l as having sent Zied-C am pb el l an ex t ra copyof the do cket s heet s o t hats he coul d i dent i fyanym i s s i ng document s ) orw hys he coul d notgetcopi es of document s i n hercas e fr om herform ercouns el . A l s o, Z i ed- C ampbel l s eemi ngl ydi d not s h o w th a t f

re e le g a l r e s e a rc h o n P A C E R w a s “ n e c e s s a ry to a v o id u n re a s o n a b le b u rd e n s ,” se e E lec tro n ic P u b lic A c c e ss F e e S c h e d u le, a lth o u g h sh e d id sh o w th a t f re e a c c e ss to PA C E R w oul d be hi ghl yconveni entforher . I n s hor t , forthe r eas ons gi ven bythe D istri ct C o u rt , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing Z ied-C am p b ell ’s renew ed requ estfor a w ai ver of P A C E R fees.