Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke

Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-26-2006 Schneller v. Fox Subacute Clara Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3036 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Schneller v. Fox Subacute Clara" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 289. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/289 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 DLD-11 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 06-3036 ____________ JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Heirs and Beneficiaries of Marjorie C. Schneller, by James D.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 v. FOX SUBACUTE AT CLARA BURKE; GARY DRIZIN, M.D.; DEBBIE MCCOY, R.N.; MARJORIE ZITOMER; G. RICHARD SCHNELLER; T. SERGEANT PEPPER, Esq.; HEPBURN, WILCOX, HAMILTON & PUTNAM LLP; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Division of Nursing Care Facilities, Norristown Field Office; GARY LAYMAN; JUDITH FOLAN; SAMUEL J. TRUEBLOOD, Esq.; TRUEBLOOD & AMACHER, L.L.P. James D. Schneller, Appellant ____________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-01504) 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 April 10, 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. While the trust capital was over $200,000, it is not clear from the submissions whether Schneller could access these funds. 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).