James George Douris v. Middletown Township

CLD-035 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3580
___________
JAMES GEORGE DOURIS,
Appellant
v.
MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP; MARY ALICE FELT, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; NEWTOWN BOROUGH; BRIAN STEVEN GREGG, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 06-cv-05312)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 5, 2009
Before: BARRY, FISHER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 24, 2009)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
James Douris, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action. We will
dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Douris filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in District Court in connection
with a civil rights action against Middletown Township and other defendants. 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 ninth 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.
Douris appealed the District Court’s order, and we affirmed, holding that the
District Court did not err in denying Douris in forma pauperis status based on his abusive
filings. Douris v. Middletown Township, et al., 293 Fed. Appx. 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008)
(unpublished opinion). We agreed with the District Court that Douris’s abusive filings
constituted “extreme circumstances” warranting an exception to the rule that leave to
proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of indigence. See 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 of 3 --

We also vacated an order dismissing the complaint, which the District Court issued1
after Douris filed his notice of appeal. See Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 120-21 (3d
Cir. 1985).
Douris appealed this order, and we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction2
because the order was not final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See C.A. No. 08-4019.
3
We remanded the case to give Douris the opportunity to pay the filing fee and pursue his
complaint. On remand, the District Court ordered Douris to pay the filing fee within 201
days or his action would be dismissed.2
Douris did not pay the filing fee. After the 20-day time period had passed, Douris
filed a motion titled “The Court will Allow Plaintiff to Proceed with Complaint,”
asserting that he could pursue his complaint without payment of the court’s fees. The
District Court dismissed the motion and the action because Douris had failed to pay the
filing fee in accordance with the District Court’s previous order. This appeal followed.
As discussed above, we have already adjudicated Douris’s appeal of the District
Court’s order denying in forma pauperis status, and Douris was unsuccessful. Pursuant to
our instructions, on remand the District Court issued an order giving Douris the
opportunity to pay the filing fee or his complaint would be dismissed. Because Douris
did not pay the filing fee, the District Court did not err in dismissing Douris’s complaint
and his motion to pursue his complaint without payment of the court’s fees.
Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
because the appeal is frivolous. Douris’s “Motion for the Court and Parties to Proceed
with Readable Documents” is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --