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 11-24-2009 

# James D ouri s v

. T ownship of Midd let own 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 . 09-3580

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 " J ame s D our i s v

. T own ship of Middle t own" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 202. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/202C L D - 035 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. 09- 3580

___________ J A M ES G EO RG E D O U RI S, A ppel l ant

v. M I DDL E T OWN T OWNS HI P ; M AR Y AL I CE F E L T , I NDI VI DUAL AND OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; NE WTOWN B OR OUGH; BR I AN S T E VE N GR E GG, I NDI VI DUAL AN D O FF I CI AL C APA CI TY

____________________________________ 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 ( E . D . Pa. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 05312) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck

____________________________________ 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 N ovember5, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember24, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J ames D our i s , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct2

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 ism iss in g h is c iv il righ ts a c tio n . W e w ill d ism iss th is ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ). D our i s fi l ed a mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s i n D i s t r i ctC our ti n connec t i on w i t h a ci vi l r i ght s act i on agai ns tM i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p and otherdefe ndant s . T he D istric t C o u rt d e n ied D o u ris’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris, sta tin g th a t D o u ris appea r ed t o qual i fyfi nanci al l yfors uch s t atus , butconcl udi ng thatD our i s ’ s fr equent fi l i ng s i n fed eral cou rtcon st i tuted an ab use of the sy st em and “extr em e ci rcum st ances” t hatj us t i fi ed deny i ng i n form a paupe r i s s t atus . T he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatthi s w as D o u ris’s n in th law su it i n th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia s in c e 1 9 9 9 , tha t all o f h is l aw s ui t s had l acke d m er i t , and thats i gni fi cantt i m e and r es our ces had bee n s penton D our i s ’ s cl ai m s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed D our i s t o paythe fi l i ng fee w i t hi n 20 day s or h is a c tio n w o u ld b e d is m is s e d . D our i s appea l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , and w e af fi r m ed, hol di ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng D our i s i n form a paupe r i s s t atus bas ed on hi s abus i ve fi l i ngs . D our i s v. M i ddl et ow n T ow ns hi p, etal . , 293 Fed. A ppx. 130, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( unpubl i s hed opi ni on) . W e agr eed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC ourtthatD our i s ’ s abus i ve fi l i ngs c o n stitu ted “ e x tre m e c irc u m sta n c e s” w a rra n tin g a n e x c e p tio n to th e ru le th a t lea v e to pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s i s bas ed on a s how i ng of i ndi gence . See i d. W e not ed that D ou ri s had repeatedl yand un successful l yfi l ed law sui t s cl ai m i ng ci vil ri gh t s vi olat i on s, a n d th a t h is la w s u its h a d re q u ir e d th e e x p e n d itu re o f s ig n if ic a n t ju d ic ia l r e s o u rc e s . Id .W e al s o vaca t ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng the compl ai nt , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued 1 aft erD our i s fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l . See V enen v. Sw eet , 758 F. 2d 117, 120- 21 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). D our i s appea l ed thi s or der , and w e di s m i s s ed the appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on 2 beca us e the or derw as notfi nal forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See C . A . N o. 08- 4019. 3 W e re m a n d e d th e c a se to g iv e D o u ris th e o p p o rtu n ityto p a yth e f ili n g f e e a n d p u rsu e h is compl ai nt . O n r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed D our i s t o paythe fi l i ng fee w i t hi n 20

1 day s orhi s act i on w oul d be di s m i s s ed. 2 D o u ris d id n o t p a yth e f ili n g f e e . A f ter th e 2 0 -d a ytim e p e rio d h a d p a ss e d , D o u ris f ile d a m o tio n title d “ T h e C o u rt w ill A llo w P la in tif f to P ro c e e d w ith C o m p la in t,” as s er t i ng t hathe coul d pur s ue hi s compl ai ntw i thoutpaym entof the court ’ s fee s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the mot i on and the ac t i on beca us e D our i s had fa i l ed t o payt he f ilin g f e e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s p re v io u s o rd e r. T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . A s di s cus s ed above , w e have al r eadyadj udi cat ed D our i s ’ s appea l of the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris s tatu s, a n d D o u ris w a s u n su c c e ss f u l. P u rsu a n t to ouri ns t ruct i ons , on r emand t he D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued an or dergi vi ng D our i s the o p p o rtu n ityto p a yth e f ili n g f e e o r h is c o m p lain t w o u ld b e d ism iss e d . B e c a u se D o u ris di d notpayt he fi l i ng fee , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng D our i s ’ s compl ai nt a n d h is m o tio n to p u rs u e h is c o m p la in t w ith o u t p a ym e n t o f th e c o u rt ’s f

e e s . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d ism iss th 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) beca us e the appe al i s fr i vol ous . D our i s ’ s “M ot i on forthe C our tand Par t i es t o Pr ocee d w i t h R eada bl e D ocument s ” i s deni ed.