C L D - 245 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. 10- 1681

___________ J A M ES D . SCH N ELL ER , H EI RS A N D BE N EFI CI A RI ES O F M A R JO R IE C . S C H N E L L E R ; E S T A T E O F M A R JO R IE C . S C H N E L L E R ;

ES TAT E OF GEORGE H. S CHNELL ER, A p p e llan ts v . A B L E H O M E C A R E , IN C .; M A R IA N N E L IL IE N T H A L ;

HO LLY N ELSON; J AN E DO E 1

____________________________________ 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 N o. 09- cv- 05747) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Law r ence F. St engel

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed bythe C l erk forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6

J ul y15, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y26, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________T he pr opos ed compl ai nti n thi s cas e w as neverfi l ed bythe D i s tr i ctC ourtand, 1 ther efor e, i s notavai l abl e el ectr oni cal l y . T he I FP m ot i on i dent i fi es A bl e H om e C ar e, I nc. , M ar i anne Li l i enthal , H ol l yN el s on, and J ane D oe 1 as defe ndant s i n the pr opos ed c iv il a c tio n . T h e s e a re th e s a m e d e f e n d a n ts n a m e din S c h n e lle r’ s p ri o r c o m p la in t. B ecaus e Schnel l erdoes notdi s put e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s char act er i zat i on of the compl ai nt a s id e n tic a l to th e o n e h e p re v io u s ly f ile din 2 0 0 8 , w e w ill a s s u m e th a t it is . 2 P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t Jam es D . S ch n ell er, pro ce ed ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s act i on. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i rm the ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. O n D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 9 , S c h n e ller f iled a m o tio n to p ro c e e din f o rm a p a u p e ris (“ IF P ” ) in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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. H is m ot i on w as as s i gned t o D i s tr i ctJ udge Law r ence St engel , w ho has pr es i ded overa number of l aw s ui t s fi l ed bySchnel l eron behal f of hi m s el f and the hei r s and bene fi ci ar i es of M a rjo rie S c h n e ller, a m o n g o th e rs. A c c o rd in g to Ju d g e S ten g e l, attac h e dto th e m o tio n to p r o c e e dI F P wa s a p r o p o s e dc o mp l a i n ti d e n t i c a l t o a c o mp l a i n tf i l e da g a i n s tth e s a me part i es i n ear l y2008. See C i v. N o. 08- cv- 01003 ( E . D . Pa. ) . Schnel l er ’ s pr evi ous 1 compl ai ntal l eged thaton J une 27, 2001, defe ndant s cons pi r ed t o caus e harm t o and in f ri n g e du p o n th e c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f M a rj o ri e S c h n e lle r, h is n o w -d e c e a s e dm o th e r. S c h n e l l e rn a me da s p l a i n t i f f s h i ms e l f , th e h e i r s a n db e n e f

i c i a r i e s o f

M a r j o r i e C. S ch n ell er, an dthe e stat es o f h is de ce ase dp are n ts, M arjorie an dG eo rge S ch n ell er. In th e p rio r a c tio n , C iv . N o . 0 8 -c v -0 1 0 0 3 (E .D . P a .), S c h n e ller f iled a m o tio n to3

p ro c e e dIF P a n da p ro p o se dc o m p lain t. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied S c h n e ller’ s m o tio n to p roc ee dIF P an dn o ted w ith o u t el ab o rati o n that “a p reli m inaryrev iew o f p lai n ti ff’s co m p lai n t sho w s tha t th is C o u rtlack s jurisdicti o n o v er a n yo f h is cl aim s. ” T h e C o u rt or der ed thatthe ca s e be marked s t at i s t i cal l ycl os ed. Schnel l ers ubs equent l ypai d the fi l i ng f e e o f $ 3 5 0 .0 0 in th e p rio r c a se a n dso u g h t to p ro c e e d , b u t th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t it h ad alread yd ism issedthe c ase an dS ch n ell er h ad fa il ed to ap p ea l. S ev era l m o n ths later, S ch n ell er f

il ed a m o ti o n fo r l ea v e to p roc ee dIF P o n ap p ea l, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed, concludi ng thatSchnel l ercoul d aff or d t o paythe fi l i ng fee . W e then gr ant ed S c h n e ller le a v e to ap p e a l w ith o u t p a y in g th e f ili n g f e e a n d , in J u ly2 0 0 9 , d ism iss e dh is ap p e a l f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to p ro c e e dIF P o n ap p e a l p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . A pp. P. 24. I tappear s thatSchnel l erhas att empt ed t o r es urr ecthi s pr i oract i on by fi l i ng hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d I FP and pr opos ed compl ai nti n the i ns t antact i on. O n D ec em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtissue dan o rde r de n y ing S ch n ell er’s m o tio n to p ro c e e dIF P a n dd ism iss in g th e c a se in its e n tirety . In d o in g so , the C o u rt h e ld thati thad di s m i s s ed Schnel l er ’ s pr i oract i on forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, as ther e w er e no s t at e ac t or s i nvol ved, and that , even i f the cl ai m s w er e pr oper l ybefor e the C ourt , theyw oul d be t i m e- barr ed. Schnel l ert i m el yfi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, a rg u in g th a t th e C o u rt h a db o th f e d e ra l q u e stio n a n dd iv e rsityju risd ictio n o v e r h is c o m p lain t an dth a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s s h o u ldb e to lled u n d e r 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. A nn. § 5532. H e di d notoffe ranyfac tual bas i s forthes e ar gum ent s . H e al s o m ai nt ai nedT h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted S c h n e ller le a v e to p ro c e e dIF P o n ap p e a l. 2 4 thatJ udge St engels houl d have di s qual i fi ed hi m s el f gi ven hi s hi s t oryof deny i ng Schnel l er ’ s I FP m ot i ons and di s m i s s i ng hi s cl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed hi s m ot i ons and Schnel l ert i m el yappea l ed. 2 W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e mayt ake s um m aryact i on w hen w e conc l ude thatan appe al pr es ent s no “s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. ” See 3 dC ir . L A R 2 7 .4 & I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . W e have pr evi ous l yexpl ai ned thatas a pr o s e l i t i gant , Schnel l erm aynotr epr es ent part i es otherthan hi m s el f. See Schnel l erv. Pr os pectPark N ur s i ng & R ehab. C tr . , 2010 W L 763642, at*1 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . M ar . 8, 2010) ; Schnel l erv. Fox Subacut e atC l ar a B urke, 2 0 1 0 W L 7 6 3 6 2 4 , a t * 1 n .1 (3 dC ir . M a r. 8 , 2 0 1 0 ); S c h n e lle r v . C ro z e r C h e s te r M e d . C tr ., 276 F. A pp’ x 169, 170 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ; Schnel l erv. Fox Subacut e atC l ar a B urke, 317 F. A pp’ x 135, 137 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ; s ee a l s o O s ei - A fr i y i e v. M ed. C ol l . of Pa. , 937 F. 2d 876, 882- 83 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng thatnon- l aw y erpr ocee di ng pr o s e coul d not rep rese n t his ow n ch il d ren ); 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 5 4 (pa rt ies m ayp roc ee din f ed era l cou rt

“ p e rso n a llyo r b yc o u n se l”) . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w illtre a t S c h n e ller a s th e so le A p p e llan t in th is a p p e a l. M uch of the conf

us i on i n thi s cas e s t ems fr om the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s fai l ur e t o fol l ow th e p ro p e r p ro c e d u re in th is a n do th e r c a se s f iled b yS c h n e ller. A s w e h a v e p re v io u sly expl ai ned, m ot i ons t o pr ocee d I FP m us tbe as s es s ed i n a tw o- s t ep pr oces s . “Fi r s t , the5

d istric t co u rt e v a lu a tes a lit ig a n t’s f in a n c ial s tatu s a n dd e term in e s w h e th e r (s )h e is e lig ib le t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s under§ 1915( a) . Second, the courtas s es s es the compl ai nt under[§ 1915( e) ( 2) ] t o det erm i ne w hetheri ti s fr i vol ous . ” R om an v. J eff es , 904 F. 2d 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 n .1 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (c iti n g S in w e ll v . S h ap p , 5 3 6 F .2 d1 5 (3 dC ir. 1 9 7 6 )). In th is cas e, as i n C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 01003, the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed Schnel l er ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d IF P , p re su m ab lyb a se do n h is f in a n c ial s itu a tio n , b u t th e n p ro c e e d e dto d isc u ss th e m e rits of hi s compl ai nt . W hen a di s tr i ctcourtdeni es l eave t o pr ocee d I FP, how ever , the compl ai nti s notbefor e the court . B ecaus e the D i s tr i ctC ourther e r eac hed the mer i t s of hi s compl ai nt , w e w i l l cons true i t s D ece m ber14, 2009 or deras gr ant i ng Schnel l erl eave to p roc ee dIF P an dd ism issi n g h is co m p lai n t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). W e have al s o hel d thata di s tr i ctcourtoughtnotdi s m i s s a pr o s e compl ai ntw i thout al l ow i ng the pl ai nt i ff l eave t o amend. See G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 1 0 3 , 1 1 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (e x p lain in g th a t p lain tiff s p ro c e e d in g IF P “ w h o f ile c o m p lain ts s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) s houl d r ece i ve l eave t o amend unl es s amendm ent w o u ld b e ine q u it ab le or f u ti le”); O atess v . S o b o levitch, 91 4 F . 2 d4 2 8 , 4 3 0 n . 5 (3d C ir . 1990) ( “W e have obs erved thata di s tr i ctcourtm i ght , s ua s pont e, r ai s e the i s s ue of the defi ci encyof a c om pl ai ntunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , s o l ong as the pl ai nt i ff i s acc or ded an op po rtun i tyt o respon d. ”). W hil e the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not fol l ow these precepts , S ch n ell er h as h ad , an dh as tak en , sev era l op p o rtu n it ies t o resp o n dto the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rde r of d ism issal. N o n e o f h is r esp o n ses h as re v ea led a n yflaw w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s6

rea so n ing that itlack ed su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n o v er h is co m p lai n t. W e w il l th ere fo re s um m ar i l yaff

i rm the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC ourt . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.