Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-15-2009
Douris v. Newtown Bor
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4427
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Douris v. Newtown Bor" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2028.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2028
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-57 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4427
JAMES GEORGE DOURIS,
Appellant
v.
NEWTOWN BOROUGH
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civil No. 07-cv-00165)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 18, 2008
Before: BARRY, AMBRO AND SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 15, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
James Douris, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his motion to proceed in forma
1
pauperis. We will affirm the order of the District Court.
Douris filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in District Court in connection
with an employment discrimination action against Newtown Borough. In his in forma
pauperis motion, Douris stated that he had not been employed since 1994, that he was
disabled, that he had no income or cash, and that he owned half of a house valued at
$100,000 and half of a car valued at $500.
The District Court denied Douris’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, stating
that Douris appeared to qualify financially for such status, but concluding that Douris’s
frequent filings in federal court constituted an abuse of the system and “extreme
circumstances” that justified denying in forma pauperis status. The District Court noted
that this was Douris’s eleventh lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since 1999,
that all of his lawsuits had lacked merit, and that significant time and resources had been
spent on Douris’s claims. The District Court ordered Douris to pay the filing fee within
20 days or his action would be dismissed. This appeal followed.1
This appeal was initially stayed pending the disposition of Douris v. Middletown
Township, et al., C.A. Nos. 07-1101 and 07-2707, another case in which the District
Court denied Douris in forma pauperis status based on abusive filings. We held in
Middletown Township that the District Court did not err in denying Douris in forma
1
We grant Douris’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of this appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d
1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995).
2
pauperis status on this basis. Douris v. Middletown Township, et al., 2008 WL 4195150,
*2 (3d Cir. Sept. 15, 2008) (unpublished opinion). We agreed with the District Court
that Douris’s filings were abusive and constituted “extreme circumstances” warranting an
exception to the rule that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of
indigence. Id. We noted that Douris had repeatedly and unsuccessfully filed lawsuits
claiming civil rights violations, and that his lawsuits had required the expenditure of
significant judicial resources. Id.2
Douris was given the opportunity to address the effect of Middletown Township
on his present appeal. Douris, however, argued the merits of his complaint, stating that
he had alleged that Newtown Borough intentionally discriminated against him by failing
to provide handicap access to a Borough building, thereby precluding him from applying
for employment as Borough secretary. Douris did not address the denial of his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis based on his abusive filings in federal court. For the same
reasons stated in Middletown Township, the District Court did not err in denying Douris
in forma pauperis status.
Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will
2
We also noted in Middletown Township that there may be little practical effect to a
litigant when in forma pauperis status is denied based on an abuse of the system. When a
litigant is granted in forma pauperis status based on indigence, the district court may
dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious under § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Sinwell,
536 F.2d at 18-19. Like the denial of in forma pauperis status, a dismissal under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) is without prejudice to the filing of a paid complaint. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992).
3
affirm the order of the District Court.3
3
Douris has filed a document in this Court entitled “Deception Before the Court By
Attorney.” To the extent Douris requests that the Court take disciplinary action against
counsel for the Appellee based on counsel’s entry of appearance, Douris’s request is
denied.
4