Opinion
Index No. 10-2958 (GEB).
November 1, 2010
ORDER
IT APPEARING THAT:
See See Id. see also in forma pauperis see see i.e. i.e. See See Accord Schneller v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr. 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14966in forma pauperis
To the degree Telfair's submission docketed as Docket Entry No. 11 was intended to operate as a motion, such motion is subject to dismissal, as moot, since no leave of court in required to appeal from final judgment, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), or, alternatively, as duplicative, since Docket Entry No. 10 already presented Telfair's appellate application.
IT IS, therefore, on this 1st day of November, 2010,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall make a new and separate entry on the docket reading "Docket Entries Nos. 11 and 11-1 shall be construed as part of Telfair's Notice of Appeal docketed as Docket Entry No. 10"; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall notify the Court of Appeals accordingly; and it is further
ORDERED that Telfair's application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted; and it is further
As the Court's opinion accompanying the Court's final judgment detailed, Telfair's filings made in this matter presented a mix of civil rights and habeas challenges packaged in an application striving to mimic a disciplinary grievance. See Docket Entry No. 7, at 24-37. The Court, thus: (a) expresses no opinion as to what filing fee shall be assessed against Telfair, see Hairston v. Gronolsky, 348 Fed. Appx. 716 (3rd Cir. 2009) (clarifying that, regardless of the litigant's willingness or unwillingness to be assessed the filing fee, the litigant's "legal obligation to pay the filing fee [is automatically] incurred by the initiation of the action itself") (citing Hall v. Stone, 170 F.3d 706, 707 (7th Cir. 1999); but see Toolasprashad v. Grondolsky, 570 F. Supp. 2d 610, 637 n. 28 (D.N.J. 2008) (providing a detailed discussion about the differences associated with assessment of filing fee for the purposes of a civil action and a habeas action); and (b) leaves the assessment issue entirely to the discretion of the Court of Appeals. Cf. Hagan v. Rogers, 570 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2009) (determining the appropriate mode of assessing filing fee for the purposes of the actions filed at district-court and appellate levels).
ORDERED that, in the event any other document is received from Telfair in connection with this matter, the Clerk shall docket each such submission, accompanying each such docket entry with a notation reading, "PURSUANT TO THE STANDING LIMITED ORDER OF PRECLUSION, THIS ENTRY IS DEEMED STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET FOR PRO SE LITIGANT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THAT ORDER OF PRECLUSION. THE CONTENT OF THIS SUBMISSION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT"; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Telfair by regular U.S. mail.