TCIF Reo CIT LLC v. Patricia Gray , 317 F. App'x 96 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-6-2009
TCIF Reo CIT LLC v. Patricia Gray
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3598
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"TCIF Reo CIT LLC v. Patricia Gray" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1764.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1764
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.
BLD-78 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3598
___________
TCIF REO CIT, LLC
v.
PATRICIA R. GRAY;
T. BARRY GRAY;
ALL OCCUPANTS OF 141 7TH AVENUE
T. Barry Gray,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-02766)
District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig
____________________________________
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
January 15, 2009
Before: MCKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 06, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
T. Barry Gray appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In June
2008, Gray filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a caption listing himself as a
defendant and TCIF REO CIT, LLC as plaintiff. He did not describe any claims he
wished to bring or explain whether he was attempting to remove an action from state
court. The District Court denied Gray’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Gray filed a timely notice of
appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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 District Court denied Gray’s motion on the grounds that the action was legally
frivolous. However, if the application is complete, the District Court should only
consider whether the applicant is economically eligible. Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15,
19 (3d Cir. 1976). It is only after leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted
that the analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is undertaken and a complaint may be
dismissed as frivolous. Thus, we conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in
denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Although the District Court noted that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
was filed without a complaint, it proceeded to assume that the case was based on a state
court action in ejectment and determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
2
Because the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and no action had been
filed, the question of subject-matter jurisdiction was not before the District Court.
Moreover, a court should not dismiss a matter when it does not know the basis for the
action.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily vacate
the District Court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings. See Third
Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. On remand, the District Court should give Gray an opportunity to
state the factual and legal basis for his action and determine whether Gray is financially
eligible to proceed in forma pauperis before undertaking an analysis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3