Jibril L. Ibrahim v. AMY KRIEBEL, Education Technician, Library

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-1630
________________
JIBRIL L. IBRAHIM,
Appellant
v.
AMY KRIEBEL, Education Technician, Library;
ROBERT COFFEE, Supervisor, Education Department;
R. CLARK, ESL, GED Teacher, Literacy Coordinator;
UNION COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA, C/O Attorney General
of Pennsylvania; HARVEY LAPPINS, Federal Bureau of
Prisons Director
__________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-CV-01217)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 4, 2005
Before: ROTH, MCKEE AND ALDISERT, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed April 5, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Jibril L. Ibrahim appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp).
We will affirm the Court’s order.
Ibrahim filed a complaint in Pennsylvania’s Court of Common Pleas for Union
County. That Court granted Ibrahim’s motion to proceed ifp, but issued a Rule to Show
Cause why the case should not be transferred to federal court or dismissed. After Ibrahim
responded, the Court entered an order noting that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and
transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
The District Court treated the complaint as a newly filed complaint, requiring
payment of filing fees. The Court initially granted Ibrahim’s motion to proceed ifp,
relying on his false certification that he had not had three or more actions dismissed as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Later, the defendants asked the Court to take judicial notice that Ibrahim had filed
numerous frivolous actions. On February 12, 2004, the Court entered an order rescinding
its previous order that had granted Ibrahim’s ifp application. The Court ordered Ibrahim
to pay the remaining $147.59 within 30 days, and warned that the suit would be dismissed
if he failed to pay within that time. Ibrahim timely appealed, and has paid the fee for his
appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

Ibrahim argues that because he was granted ifp in the state court, the District Court
should have honored his ifp status when the case was transferred to the District Court.
However, the state court lacked authority to “transfer” the case. See Bloom v. Fine, 653
A.2d 1292 (Pa. Super. 1995) (state court may not transfer case to federal court). Thus,
the District Court properly treated the complaint as a newly filed action. As Ibrahim has
had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, the District
Court properly rescinded his ifp status and required payment of fees. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Thus, we will affirm the order of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --