Ronald Pruden v. Schuylkill County Prison Medical Staff

BLD-11 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3072
___________
RONALD PRUDEN,
Appellant
v.
SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON MEDICAL STAFF;
SCI CAMP HILL DOCTORS & STAFF;
SCI CRESSON, Ms. Nolan & Doctor;
SCI HOUTZDALE, Doctor;
SCI HUNTINGDON, Dr. Alterman, Unit Manager, SOU
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-00006)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
____________________________________
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
October 12, 2007
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 6, 2007)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Ronald Pruden, appeals from the order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his post-judgment motion for

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the appointment of counsel and motion to consolidate his cases as moot. For the reasons
that follow, we will dismiss his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
On January 3, 2007, Pruden filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
District Court determined that the injunctive relief Appellant sought was no longer
available and dismissed the complaint as moot. Pruden appealed, and we dismissed his
appeal for his failure to timely prosecute. C.A. No. 07-1319. Thereafter, Pruden filed
several motions requesting counsel and consolidation of his cases. The District Court
denied the motions as moot because Pruden’s case had been closed. Pruden appeals from
the denial of his third motion.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because
Pruden has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we
review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
appeal may be dismissed if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
We conclude that the District Court properly denied Pruden’s motion for counsel
and motion to consolidate as moot. Because Pruden’s complaint had been dismissed and
the action closed, the District Court had no alternative except to deny the motions.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Pruden’s motion for counsel is denied.

-- 2 of 2 --