2010 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 6-2-2010 

# T e rr ance M atthews v

. S u ggs 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 . 10-1260

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_2010

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 2010 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 " T e rr anc e M atthews v

. S u ggs " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1212. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1212A L D - 201 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- 1260 TER RA N CE M A TTH EW S,

A ppel l ant v . CO M S . S UGGS ; CO M R. KE L L Y; CO . M CK E L VY,

OTHER DE F ENDANTS , ET C. 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. 09- cv- 6168) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M . G ol den 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) orSum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 M ay20, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 2, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM T err ance M at t hew s , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris a n d a d m in istra tiv e lyA l t hough M at t hew s does notappea rt o have f i l ed a c opyof the ci vi l compl ai nt , the 1 D i s t r i ctC our tdocketr efl ect s t hatM at t hew s w as at t empt i ng t o pr ocee d pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. 2 t erm i nat i ng hi s ci vi l act i on. W e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emand for further proceedings. I. I n D ece m ber2009, M at t hew s s ubm i t t ed hi s i n form a paupe r i s ( “I FP”) appl i cat i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . I n hi s I FP appl i cat i on, M att hew s s t at ed thathe i s notempl oy ed, but t h a th e h a s mo n t h l ye x p e n s e s wh i c h i n c l u d e b a c k c h i l d s u p p o r tp a yme n t s f o rh i s two m i norchi l dr en, par ol e s upervi s i on fee s , and r es t i tut i on cos t s . B yor derent er ed J anuary7, 20 10 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed the m oti on , fi nd i ng that the $ 1, 03 7. 38 i n M at t hew s’ p ri s o n a c c o u n t w a s “ s u f f ic ie n t to p a yth e $ 3 5 0 f

ilin g f e e to c o m m e n c e [ a ] c iv il a c tio n .” 1 M a tth e w s a p p e a led , arg u in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t tak e in to a c c o u n t h is v a rio u s e x p e n se s. In p a rticu lar , h e a ss e rts th a t h e m u st p a ya ll o f th e f e e s a ss o c iate d w ith hi s par ol e bef

or e he i s r el eas ed. I f he i s r equi r ed t o paythe ent i r e D i s tr i ctC our tfi l i ng f e e , h e w i l l h a v e i n s u f

f i c i e n tf u n d s t o c o v e rh i s p a r o l e c o s t s a n d w i l l n o tb e r e l e a s e d . We g ra n ted M a tth e w s le a v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l. I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, s ee Redm ond v. G i l l , 352 F. 3d 801, 803 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and w e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng forabus e of di s cr et i on, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. H ol i day , 436 F. 2d 1079, 1079 ( 3d C i r . 1971) . I FP det erm i nat i ons3

g e n e ra llya re m a d e so lelyo n th e b a sis o f in d ig e n c e , w ith o u t re g a rd to th e p o ten tial m e rit o f a c o m p la in t. S e e D e u ts c h v . U n ite d S ta te s , 6 7 F .3 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 4 n .5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in re q u irin g M a tth e w s to payt he fi l i ng fee . A l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatM at t hew s had s uffi ci ent funds i n hi s pr i s on acc ountt o payt he fe e, i tdoes notappea rt o have t aken i nt o acc ount M at t hew s ’ ot herfi nanci al obl i gat i ons , part i cul ar l yhi s back c hi l d s uppor tpaym ent s and c o sts a ss o c iate d w ith h is p a ro le. B e sid e s, th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t a p lain tiff n e e d n o t “b e a b so lu telyd e stitu te to e n jo yth e b e n e f

it” o f in f o rm a p a u p e ris s t atus . A dki ns v. E . I . D uPontde N emours & C o. , 335 U . S. 331, 339 ( 1948) . B as ed on ourr evi ew of the fi nanci al i nform at i on cont ai ned i n t he I FP appl i cat i on s ubm i t t ed t o t he D is tr ic t C o u rt , M a tth e w s a p p e a rs to b e e lig ib le f o r I F P s ta tu s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yvaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , and r emand t he m a tte r f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .