2008 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 1-16-2008 

# T a y lor v . S upre me C t of N

J 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 . 07-1893

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_2008

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 2008 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 a y lor v . S upr e me C t of N

J " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1732. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1732B L D - 4 4 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. 07- 1893

___________ S AM UEL TAYLOR, A ppel l ant v. S UP RE M E CO UR T OF NJ

__________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 05530) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M aryL . C ooper

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on 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 ovember8, 2007 Bef or e : M CK EE, RE N D ELL A N D SM I TH , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary16, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , Sam uel T ay l orw i s hed t o fi l e hi s compl ai ntof empl oym ent d iscri m ination o n the b asis o f ra ce , co lor, an d n ati o n al origin ag ains t th e S u p rem e C o u rt2

of N ew J er s eyw i t houtpay i ng t he fi l i ng and docke t i ng fee s . T o t hi s end, he fi l ed an appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s ( “i fp”) . C ons i der i ng the appl i cat i on, the D i s tr i ct C our tnot ed Tay l or ’ s unempl oym ent , s ever al depende nt s , and mi ni m al s avi ngs , but ques t i oned w hatpr event ed Tay l orfr om obt ai ni ng new empl oym entand w onder ed w hetherT ay l or , w ho ow ns a modesthom e and 11- y ear - ol d car , had s om e others our ce of s uppor t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the appl i cat i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o a r enew ed a p p lic a tio n w ith m o re in f o rm a tio n . T ay l orfi l ed a s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ars econd appl i cat i on i n w hi ch he c l ar i fi ed thatt he s i x d e p e n d e n t s we r e h i s c h i l d r e n a n d e x p l a i n e d th a th i s wi f e e a r n e d $ 1 0 4 5 e v e r ytwo w e e k s to su p p o rt th e ir f a m ily . H e a lso f

iled a m o tio n f

o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, cont endi ng t hathe di d nothave the funds t o hi r e a l aw y ert o handl e the compl ex i s s ues t hatw er e bey ond hi m i n hi s cas e. T ay l oral s o s ur m i s ed thats om e l aw y er s he had s poken t o w er e w aryof oppos i ng t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t( t he s ol e D efe ndantand the a p p e a rin g A p p e llee ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t T a y lo r w a s n o t en tit led to i fp s t atus beca us e he ha d t he means t o paythe fe es ; the D i s t r i ctC our tal s o deni ed the couns el m ot i on. T ay l orfi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. O n February27, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on and or der ed the D i s t r i ctC our tC l erk t o r efr ai n fr om fi l i ng T ay l or ’ s compl ai ntand t o des i gnat e Tay l or ’ s cas e cl os ed. T ay l orappea l s andW e pr evi ous l ygr ant ed Tay l or ’ s appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d i fp on appe al . See Tay l orv. 1 Supr eme C our tof N J , N o. 07- 1893 ( or derent er ed on Sept . 5, 2007) ( al s o not i fy i ng the p arti es th at, af

ter a resp o n se p eriod , the c ase w o u ld b e su b m itted f o r po ssible su m m ary a c tio n ). 3 m o v e s f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. 1 B eca us e no s ubs t ant i al i s s ue i s pr es ent ed on appe al , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yr ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entt o t he ext entthe D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Tay l or ’ s m ot i on fori fp s t atus and mot i on forr econs i der at i on. See L. A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I n l i ghtof the r ever s al , w e al s o w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entt o t he ext entthatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed T a y lo r’s m o tio n f

o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, de c lin e d to f

ile h is c o m p lain t, an d c lo se d h is c a s e . W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i ons deny i ng T ay l or ’ s i fp m ot i on and hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. See J ones v. Z i m m erm an, 752 F. 2d 76, 78 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ; K os hatka v. Phi l a. N e w s p a p e rs , In c ., 7 6 2 F .2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e p e rm itt e d T a y lo r to p ro c e e d if p . T h e d e c isio n to granti fp st atus turns on w hetheran ap pli cant i s “econ om i cal l yel i gibl e” fo r s uch st atus. Si nw el l v. Shapp, 536 F. 2d 15, 19 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A per s on need notbe

“ a bs ol ut e l yde s t i tut e ” t o p r oc e e d i fp , A dk i ns v. E. I . D uPo ntde N e mour s & Co. , 33 5 U. S. 331, 339 ( 1948) ; how ever , an af fi antm us ts how the i nabi l i t yt o paythe fi l i ng and docket i ng fee s , s ee W alke r v. P eo p le E x p ress A ir li n es, Inc . , 8 8 6 F . 2 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ).4

Ta y l o rh a s b e e n u n e mp l o y e d s i n c e h e l o s th i s j o b wi t h th e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C o u rt in A u g u st 2 0 0 5 . H e , h is w if e , an d th e ir six c h ild re n liv e o n h is w if e ’s b i-w e e k ly s al aryof $1045. T heyl i ve i n a home w or t h appr oxi m at el y$90, 000 and s har e one c ar w or t h appr oxi m at el y$3000. T heyhave mi ni m al s avi ngs i n t hei rchec ki ng acc ount . T he f a m ilyo f e ig h t is liv in g b e lo w th e f e d e ra l p o v e rtylev e l o f

$ 3 4 ,5 7 0 . S e e 2 0 0 7 P o v e rty G ui del i nes fort he 48 C ont i guous St at es and the D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a, Fed. R eg. D oc. 07- 268 ( J an. 19, 2007) . I n l i ghtof hi s m odes tas s et s , T ay l ori s not“abs ol ut el ydes t i tut e, ” but h e i s i n d i g e n ta n d m a d e t h e r e q u i r e d s h o w i n g o f a n i n a b i l i t y t o p a y th e f e e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng hi s i fp m ot i on. Si m i l ar l y , the D i s t r i ct C o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n in re f u s in g re c o n s id e ra tio n o f a n e rr o n e o u s d e c is io n . H avi ng found no m er i tt o T ay l or ’ s i fp m ot i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s al l ow ed the fi l i ng of Tay l or ’ s compl ai nt , deni ed Tay l or ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el , and o r d e r e d t h e c a s e c l o s e d . Be c a u s e T a y l o rs h o u l d h a v e b e e n p e r mi t t e d t o p r o c e e d i f p , we vaca t e thes e dec i s i ons . O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s di r ect ed t o r eopen the ca s e and al l ow T ay l ort o fi l e hi s compl ai nt . A l t hough w e expr es s no opi ni on on w hetherT ay l or sh o u ld b e a p p o in ted c o u n se l, th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r th e c o u n se l m o tio n o n its m er i t s . W e denyT ay l or ’ s couns el m ot i on on appea l beca us e, al t hough hi s appea l has m er i t , couns el w oul d notai d ourr es ol ut i on of thi s cas e. See Tabr on v. G r ace , 6 F. 3d 147, 1 5 5 -5 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).I n concl us i on, w e r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entt o t he ext entthatthe

D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Tay l ori fp s t atus and r econs i der at i on, and w e vac at e i tt o t he ext ent th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied T a y lo r’s c o u n se l m o tio n , d isa llo w e d th e f ili n g o f h is compl ai nt , and or der ed the ca s e cl os ed. W i t houtopi ni ng on w hetherT ay l ors houl d be appoi nt ed couns el i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e denyhi s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el o n a p p e a l. W e re m a n d f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s in th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n .