Batsaihan Purveegiin v. USCA 3RD CIRCUIT COURTS, Corrupt Administratives

CLD-177 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4686
________________
BATSAIHAN PURVEEGIIN,
Appellant
v.
USCA 3RD CIRCUIT COURTS, Corrupt Administratives;
MARCIA M. WALDRON, USCA 3RD Cir. Court; LYNN LOPEZ,
USCA 3RD Cir. Legal Aid; BRADFORD BALDUS, USCA 3RD Cir.
Legal Aid; USCA 3RD CIR. CLERK ADMINISTRATION,
USCA 3RD Cir. Clerks Office
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-04580)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
March 29, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed April 30, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 3 --

1
Furthermore, to the extent that Purveegiin requested that the District Court
superintend the activities of this Court, the District Court was without jurisdiction to
proceed, as the District Court noted.
2
Batsaihan Purveegiin, representing himself, sued this Court, or at least its “corrupt
administratives” and “administration,” as well as members of the Court’s staff. In his
complaint, Purveegiin expressed dissatisfaction with how pending appeals were being
handled. He took issue with an instruction that he communicate in writing with this Court
in lieu of expressing his concerns in abusive telephone calls. Also, as the District Court
accurately and diplomatically summarized, Purveegiin alleged that his counsel in another
case had seduced, or been seduced by, Court personnel.
The District Court denied Purveegiin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
and dismissed Purveegiin’s complaint as legally frivolous. Purveegiin appeals and
requests appointment of counsel. Also, in a “motion to strike,” he moves to quash the
appearance of Appellees’ counsel, arguing, among other things, that Appellees’ counsel
unlawfully colluded with Purveegiin’s former counsel and seduced, or was seduced by, a
district court judge.
As the District Court acknowledged, Purveegiin was entitled to proceed
in forma pauperis, as he was absolutely without assets. However, Purveegiin’s complaint,
full of baseless complaints and not without malice, could not proceed. The District Court
properly dismissed it as meritless.1 Purveegiin’s appeal is likewise without merit in fact
or law. Accordingly, we will dismiss Purveegiin’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. Without dallying
with the spurious accusations in his “motion to strike,” we deny that motion as well.

-- 3 of 3 --