2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-19-2010

Warren F. Arsad, Jr. v. Sandra Gerula

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-3379

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Warren F. Arsad, Jr. v. Sandra Gerula" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1857.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1857
1

HLD-082 (January 2010) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3379

___________

WARREN F. ARSAD, JR.,

Appellant

vs.

MS. SANDRA GERULA, Records Supervisor;

MS. REBECCA REIFER, Grievance Coordinator;

MR. KENNETH CAMERON, Superintendent

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Western District of Pennsylvania

(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 09-cv-00196)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 29, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed: February 19, 2010 

 

 OPINION

 

PER CURIAM.

Warren Arsad, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order

dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
2

and review the District Court’s order for an abuse of discretion. See Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d

801, 803 (3d Cir. 2003). We will affirm.

On July 15, 2009, Arsad filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that prison

officials were permitting his “false imprisonment.” Rather than remit the appropriate filing fee

or submit a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Arsad instead requested that the

filing fee be paid from a fund which supposedly exists at the Federal Reserve Bank in his name.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to screen the complaint issued an Order on July 27, 2009,

instructing Arsad that he must first authorize payment of the filing fee pursuant to the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, by signing an Authorization form which was provided

to him. Arsad, a litigant who is quickly becoming a “frequent filer” in this Circuit, once again

attempted to avoid his obligation to pay the filing fee for the underlying action. Rather than

request in forma pauperis status and sign the Authorization form, Arsad submitted a promissory

note purporting to cover the costs of filing his § 1983 complaint. Given Arsad’s continued

refusal to either pay the filing fee or properly pursue in forma pauperis status, the Magistrate

Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that his complaint be dismissed for

lack of prosecution.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Arsad was afforded an opportunity to file written

objections to the Report and Recommendation. Instead of filing objections to the Report or

providing the requested Authorization, Arsad prepared a notice of appeal to this Court. As a

result of Arsad’s steadfast refusal to assume financial responsibility for his § 1983 action, the

District Court entered an Order on August 11, 2009 – prior to the receipt of Arsad’s notice of
1

 To the extent Arsad objects to the Clerk’s Order assessing fees for this appeal, we will

affirm the Clerk’s Order. While this Court requires the authorization form by local rule, it is not

required by the statute. Arsad’s obligation to pay the filing fees associated with this appeal was

incurred when he filed his notice of appeal and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal. He can not avoid paying those fees simply by failing to sign and file the Authorization

form. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 1987); Hall v. Stone, 170 F.3d 706, 708

(7th Cir. 1999).

3

appeal – directing that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Arsad’s notice of

appeal to this Court was thereafter received and filed in a timely manner. 

As directed by the case opening letter from this Court’s Clerk’s Office, Arsad sought and

was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.1

 Upon careful review of the record,

we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in administratively terminating

Arsad’s civil action for failure to prosecute. We do not hesitate to conclude that Arsad’s conduct

amounts to a willful failure to respond to the orders issued by the District Court, and “evidences

an intent to flout the District Court’s instructions” on proper compliance with the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 1915. Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d at 803.

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court as no

substantial question is presented by this appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

We also note that this appeal is but one of a number growing out of Arsad’s practice of

attempting to evade responsibility for payment of filing fees by tendering worthless “promissory

notes” or refusing to sign authorization forms. Appellant’s tactics constitute harassment of the

judicial system and should not be permitted to continue. Accordingly, we direct that the Clerk of

this Court to accept no future cases from Warren F. Arsad, Jr., absent a specific order from a

judge of this Court.