JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Heirs v. CROZER CHESTER MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a Taylor Hospital

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2268
JAMES D. SCHNELLER, Heirs and Beneficiaries of
Marjorie C. Schneller, by James D. Schneller, Trustee Ad Litem;
ESTATE OF MARJORIE SCHNELLER, by and through
James D. Schneller, Trustee Ad Litem;
MARJORIE ZITOMER, Executrix of the Estate of Marjorie Schneller
v.
CROZER CHESTER MEDICAL CENTER
d/b/a Taylor Hospital and Crozer Keystone Health System;
HERMAN McGILL, M.D.;
SUBURBAN PULMONARY MEDICINE, and Principals;
DANIEL DUPONT, D.O.; E. HEFFELFINGER, D.O.;
GERALD MEIS, D.O.; GURPREET KOCHAR, M.D.;
LALITHA GURIJALA, M.D.;
T. SERGEANT PEPPER, ESQ.; RICHARD SCHNELLER;
HEPBURN, WILCOX, HAMILTON & PUTNAM LLP
James D. Schneller,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-0698
(Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 17, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 5 --

Schneller filed his complaint pro se. He also purports to represent other persons and1
entities. Although Schneller is entitled to represent himself pro se, he “may not appear
pro se in the cause of another person or entity.” Pridgen v. Anderson, 113 F.3d 391, 393
(2d Cir. 1997). See also Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d, 882-83 (3d Cir.
1991) (holding that non-lawyer proceeding pro se could not represent his children); 28
U.S.C. § 1654 (parties may proceed in federal court “personally or by counsel”).
2
(Filed: April 23, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
James Schneller appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
amended complaint. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings.
I.
Schneller has filed numerous state and federal complaints premised on the
circumstances surrounding the death of his mother and the administration of his parents’
estate. In the instant case, Schneller filed suit against, inter alia, various health care
providers, alleging that they negligently or intentionally caused his mother’s death. He
also named as defendants his brother, a lawyer and a law firm, alleging improprieties
concerning his mother’s living will, certain powers of attorney, and his parents’ estate.
Schneller alleges that certain defendants are state actors, and he purports to state claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a plethora of other federal statutes and regulations.1

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Schneller moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The District
Court denied the motion by order entered February 27, 2006, then denied Schneller’s
motion for leave to file an amended IFP application by order entered March 31, 2006.
Schneller then filed several other motions, including a renewed IFP application. By order
entered April 19, 2006, the District Court denied Schneller’s motions, dismissed his
complaint, and ordered that the case be marked closed. In a memorandum accompanying
the order, the District Court wrote that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Schneller’s claims. Schneller then filed a motion for reconsideration and for leave to
amend his complaint. The District Court denied that motion by order entered May 9,
2006. The court concluded that order with the sentence: “This case shall remain closed
until the filing fee is paid.”
Schneller appealed, and this Court, after granting him leave to proceed IFP on
appeal, dismissed the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Schneller
v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr., 201 Fed. Appx. 862 (3d Cir. 2006). In our opinion, we
limited our discussion to the IFP issue and concluded only that the District Court had not
abused its discretion in denying leave to proceed IFP in light of Schneller’s financial
condition. See id. at 862-63. We did not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Schneller then filed an amended complaint and paid part of the filing fee. By order
entered March 27, 2007, the District Court sua sponte struck the amended complaint from
the record and ordered the Clerk to mark the case closed for all purposes. In doing so, the

-- 3 of 5 --

4
court wrote that it had dismissed Schneller’s original complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and relied on its prior orders, including its order of May 9. Schneller
appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
The parties are referred to our opinion and judgment, entered contemporaneously
herewith, in Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke, et al., C.A. No. 07-1949. In that
appeal, we are vacating the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a related complaint
filed by Schneller, after he had paid the District Court filing fee in full, because (1) the
District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the basis of a prior order that we
construed as merely having denied Schneller leave to proceed IFP, and (2) the District
Court dismissed the complaint without notice and without giving Schneller an opportunity
to respond or amend his complaint. The same errors are present here, and we will vacate
the District Court’s March 27 order at issue here for the same reasons.
The only procedural distinction is that Schneller appears to have paid only a partial
filing fee after filing his amended complaint in this case. (See March 12, 2007 District
Court Docket Notation.) Thus, his amended complaint technically was never filed, see
Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 429 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990), and the District Court could
have determined merely that the partial filing fee failed to reopen the case in accordance
with its May 9 order. On remand, the District Court is directed to enter an order setting a
date certain by which Schneller is required to pay the filing fee in full. If Schneller does

-- 4 of 5 --

5
not pay the filing fee by that date, the District Court may dismiss the complaint without
prejudice on that basis. If Schneller pays the filing fee, the District Court should proceed
in accordance with our opinion issued in Schneller v. Fox Subacute at Clara Burke, et al.,
C.A. No. 07-1949. Appellees’ motion to file a supplemental appendix is granted.
Schneller’s motion to strike the supplemental appendix and stay this appeal, and his
request for oral argument, are denied.

-- 5 of 5 --