Michael John Piskanin v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County

ALD-075 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-3614
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN,
Appellant
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY
AND ALL OF ITS JUDGES; SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND ALL OF ITS JUDGES;
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AND ALL
OF ITS JUSTICES; TOM CORBETT, ESQ. AS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA;
MARCIA M. WALDRON, ESQ.; THE CURRENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS; JEFFREY A. BEARD ITS SECRETARY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-03099)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
____________________________________
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
December 17, 2009
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 29, 2009)

-- 1 of 5 --

Act 84 authorizes the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to make deductions1
from an inmate’s account for the purpose of collecting costs, fines and restitution or other
court-ordered obligations associated with the inmate’s prosecution. See Sweatt v. Dep’t
of Corrections, 769 A.2d 574 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
2
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Michael Piskanin, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint on July
13, 2009 in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas and all of its judges, the state supreme court
and all of its justices, and others, alleging that his prosecution and conviction in Lehigh
County at CCP 2072/2004 were the product of a retaliatory conspiracy. Attached to the
Complaint, but not separately noted on the district court docket, was a three-page “Motion
for Westfall and Other Relief Pending Due Process with Motion for Leave to Proce [sic]
In Forma Pauperis.” In this motion, Piskanin asserted that he was without sufficient
funds to mail a copy of his certified account statement to the court and that part of his
problem was due to the operation of Act 84. Piskanin asked the District1
Court to take notice of the fact that he had been granted in forma pauperis status in four
other civil actions, and grant him in forma pauperis status in the present action on that
basis.
The District Court considered Piskanin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

-- 2 of 5 --

3
denied it without prejudice in an order filed on July 23, 2009 on the ground that he failed
to provide sufficient financial information for the court to determine his ability to pay the
filing fee, and because he failed to file a certified copy of his inmate account statement as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The District Court gave Piskanin 30 days to cure
these defects. In response, Piskanin filed two Department of Corrections inmate account
statements covering his transactions at the prison from July 3, 2008 through April 9,
2009, and indicating a balance of -$21.58 on April 9, 2009, and what appears to be his
personal account statement covering transactions at the prison from July 1, 2009 through
August 3, 2009, indicating that his balance had fallen to -$65.73. In addition, he filed a
Certification from an Authorized Prison Official in which the certifying official noted that
Piskanin had a balance in his inmate account of -$65.73.
In an order entered on August 26, 2009, the District Court denied Piskanin’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice to “his right to file a new civil
action in which he complies with all applicable filing requirements.” In a footnote, the
District Court concluded that Piskanin’s response to the court’s July 23, 2009 order was
inadequate because he filed only a partial account statement and he failed to file a new
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Piskanin appeals. Our Clerk granted him leave to appeal in forma pauperis and
advised him that his appeal was subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) or summary affirmance under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Piskanin filed in this Court an “emergency motion for relief to preserve the status quo”
prior to the Clerk’s Order granting him in forma pauperis status.
We will summarily affirm under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because
it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by this appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 254 (3d
Cir. 2001) (if plaintiff cannot cure defects or declares his intention to stand on motion,
order dismissing without prejudice is appealable); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d
950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976) (same). We review the denial of a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis for abuse of discretion. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,
337 (1948); Bullock v. Suomela, 710 F.2d 102, 103 (3d Cir. 1983).
The in forma pauperis statute provides that the District Court may authorize the
commencement of a civil action without prepayment of fees “by a person who submits an
affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is
unable to pay such fees....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to submitting this
affidavit of poverty, a “prisoner seeking to bring a civil action ... without prepayment of
fees ... shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of
the complaint..., obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the
prisoner is or was confined.” Id. at § 1915(a)(2).
The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the District Court to “take judicial

-- 4 of 5 --

5
notice” of prior grants of pauper status. Each new lawsuit filed requires an up-to-date
affidavit of poverty and inmate account statement for the 6-month period immediately
preceding the filing of the complaint. Although Piskanin supplied his current inmate
account balance, the statute required him to provide an inmate account statement covering
the six-month period from January 13, 2009 to July 13, 2009. He supplied no account
information for the period from April 9, 2009 to July 1, 2009. Even if we concluded that
the inmate account statements he submitted were substantially complete, Piskanin’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis did not contain the required affidavit of poverty
identifying all of his assets. There thus was no way for the District Court to determine
whether he is currently financially eligible to proceed without prepayment of the fees, see
Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976). Having filed by his own admission
four prior civil actions, Piskanin is charged with knowing what forms are required and
how to request an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis from the Clerk of Court.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court
denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant’s Emergency Motion for
Relief to Preserve the Status Quo is denied.

-- 5 of 5 --