Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-26-2006
Schneller v. Prospect Park
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3067
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Schneller v. Prospect Park" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 288.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/288
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-12 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-3067
________________
JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Heirs and Beneficiaries of Marjorie C. Schneller, by James D.
Schneller, Trustee Ad Litem; ESTATE OF MARJORIE SCHNELLER, by and through
James D. Schneller, Trustee Ad Litem; MARJORIE ZITOMER, Executrix of the Estate
of Marjorie Schneller; ESTATE OF GEORGE H. SCHNELLER, by and through
personal representative James D. Schneller
v.
PROSPECT PARK NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, It’s owners and
employees, including; MONICA RENDELL, R.N.; FRAN DOE, R.N. said last name
being fictitious and unknown; HERMAN MCGILL, M.D.; SUBURBAN PULMONARY
MEDICINE, and principals; DANIEL DUPONT, D.O.; E. HEFFELFINGER, D.O.;
GERALD MEIS, D.O.; MARJORIE ZITOMER; RICHARD SCHNELLER; T.
SERGEANT PEPPER, Esq.; HEPBURN, WILCOX, HAMILTON & PUTNAM LLP
James D. Schneller, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00545)
District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
October 13, 2006
Before: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN and CHAGARES, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: October 26, 2006)
____________________
OPINION
____________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, James Schneller, appeals from the District Court’s denial of his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and review the District Court’s determination for abuse of discretion. See Jones v.
Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985).
Schneller brought this action and two companion cases against various
healthcare providers, state agencies, and attorneys for alleged wrongdoing related to the
deaths of his parents in 2001 and 2002. He filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
in the District Court on February 3, 2006, stating that he had no cash savings or valuable
property, and that distributions from a spendthrift trust constituted his only income. This
trust reportedly made direct payments for his rent, utilities, and health insurance, and
distributed $100 per week to Schneller for additional expenses. The District Court denied
this motion on April 18, pointing out that Schneller spent most of his discretionary
income on costs related to ongoing cases he had brought in state court. Schneller filed a
notice of appeal on June 8 and was granted leave by this Court to proceed with his appeal
in forma pauperis.
After a thorough and careful review of the record, we are not convinced that
the District Court abused its discretion in denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).