ARNOLD v. GILMORE et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER dismissing the appeals of Kenneth Arnold 15 and 16 requesting review of (1) the magistrate judge's Order dated September 29, 2016, which denied Plaintiff's request to obtain service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of the service fees and (2) the magistrate judge's Text Order dated September 29, 2016, which denied without prejudice Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/13/2016. (bdk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. GILMORE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2: 16-cv-1299
United States District Judge
Nora Barry Fischer
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are two appeals1 (ECF Nos. 15 and 16) filed by Plaintiff Kenneth
Arnold (“Arnold” or “Plaintiff”) requesting review of (1) the magistrate judge’s Order dated
September 29, 2016, which denied Plaintiff’s request to obtain service by the U.S. Marshal
without pre-payment of the service fees and (2) the magistrate judge’s Text Order dated
September 29, 2016, which denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of
counsel. Upon review of the matters raised by the appeals, the Court concludes that the Orders
appealed from are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, Arnold’s appeals will
be dismissed.
Standard of Review
The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639, provides two separate standards for
judicial review of a magistrate judge’s decision: (i) “de novo” for magistrate resolution of
dispositive matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), and (ii) “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”
for magistrate resolution of nondispositive matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accord
1
The Court has construed Plaintiff’s filings, which are entitled “Response to Denial of
Motion to Obtain Service by U.S. Marshal Service Without Fees” and “Response to Denial of
Motion to Appoint Counsel,” as appeals to the district court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), (b); Local Civil Rule 72.1(C)(2); see Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785
F.2d 1108, 1113 (3d Cir. 1986).
Both Orders entered on September 29, 2016, were for non-dispositive matters under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Thus, the Orders will not be disturbed unless found to be clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous “when although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 56, 573
(1985) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)).
Discussion
First, the Court will discuss Arnold’s objection to the Order denying his motion to obtain
service by U.S. Marshal Service without fees. (ECF No. 15). Next, the Court will turn to
Arnold’s objection to the Order denying without prejudice his motion to appoint counsel. (ECF
No. 16.)
A.
Order Denying Arnold’s Motion to Obtain Service by U.S. Marshal Service Without Fees
In his motion, Plaintiff stated that his imprisonment limited his ability to effect service
and that due to his financial condition, he was unable to afford the service process fees. In his
objection, Plaintiff states that he “cannot afford to hire a private server” and that his
imprisonment “greatly limits his ability to have any other person affect service.” (ECF No. 15, at
¶¶3, 4).
As the magistrate judge explained, the fact that Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only permits for the waiver of the prepayment of the
2
filing fees, it does not provide for the payment of any other litigation expenses. In the absence of
some express statutory legal authority, this Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request to waive service
fees.
Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) specifically provides that “[t]he officers of the court shall
issue and serve all process . . . .” The Court notes that on October 11, 2016, the magistrate judge
provided Plaintiff with the requisite U.S. Marshal Form 285, and a notice and waiver of
summons for each defendant. The forms are to be returned to the Court by Plaintiff on or before
October 31, 2016, and the U.S. Marshal will be ordered to effectuate service. (ECF No. 14.)
Plaintiff is advised that service will not be delayed pending payment of the service process fees.
The Court, therefore, concludes that the Order of the magistrate judge to deny Plaintiff’s
request to waive service fees was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
B.
Order Denying Without Prejudice Arnold’s Request for Appointment of Counsel
At the time Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted,
Plaintiff was ordered to pay $34.25 as an initial partial filing fee as provided by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiff was specifically advised that no further action would be taken in his
case until the initial partial filing fee was paid in full. See Order of 9/22/2016. (ECF No. 4.) On
that same day, the Court received Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 8.)
The magistrate judge denied the request without prejudice and Plaintiff was again informed that
no further action would be taken in the case until the initial partial filing fee of $34.25 was paid
in full.
3
On October 6, 2016, the initial partial filing fee was paid in full. (ECF No. 13.)
Accordingly, should Plaintiff so desire, he may now renew his motion for appointment of
counsel.
The Court concludes that the Order of the magistrate judge to deny without prejudice
Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel because the initial partial filing fee had not been
paid was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that neither the decision and Order of
the magistrate judge denying Plaintiff’s request to waive service fees nor the decision and Order
of the magistrate judge denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel
was clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s appeals are DENIED and his
objections DISMISSED.
So ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2016.
s/_Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc:
KENNETH ARNOLD
GN-7646
SCI Forest
Post Office Box 945
Marienville, PA 16239
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?