Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-13-2007
Purveegiin v. USCA Third Cir
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4836
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Purveegiin v. USCA Third Cir" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 945.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/945
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-208 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4836
________________
BATSAIHAN PURVEEGIIN,
Appellant
v.
USCA 3RD CIRCUIT COURTS, Corrupt Administratives;
MARCIA M. WALDRON, USCA 3RD Cir. Court; LYNN LOPEZ,
USCA 3RD Cir. Legal Aid; BRADFORD BALDUS, USCA 3RD Cir.
Legal Aid; USCA 3RD CIR. CLERK ADMINISTRATION,
USCA 3RD Cir. Clerks Office
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-04580)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
__________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
April 26, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH AND JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed June 13, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Batsaihan Purveegiin, representing himself, sued this Court, or at least its “corrupt
administratives” and “administration,” as well as members of the Court’s staff. His
allegations focused on how his pending appeals were being handled. Among other
things, he contended that his counsel in another case had seduced, or been seduced by,
Court personnel.
The District Court denied Purveegiin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismissed Purveegiin’s complaint as legally frivolous. Purveegiin filed a notice of
appeal, opening an appeal that proceeds separately. In the District Court, Purveegiin then
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The District Court
transferred the motion to this Court for disposition. Purveegiin appeals from the order
transferring his motion and requests appointment of counsel.
Purveegiin’s appeal is without merit in fact or law. Having already denied
Purveegiin’s first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the District Court
determined that this Court would be the appropriate forum for Purveegiin’s renewed
attempt to seek in forma pauperis status. Had the District Court merely denied the
motion, Purveegiin would have been permitted to file his motion in this Court. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(5). The transfer put the motion before us without Purveegiin having to
refile it. We do not find error in the District Court’s decision. Accordingly, we will
dismiss Purveegiin’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and deny his motion
for appointment of counsel.
2