Eugene E. Chatman v. Allegheny County, Pa

APS-273 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2050
________________
EUGENE E. CHATMAN,
Appellant
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA;
RSI PROPERTY MANAGEMENT;
STEVEN BASKIN;
KAREN BASKIN;
JAMES BUTLER;
JUDITH BUTLER;
DAVID K. RUDOV
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00277)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
JUNE 16, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, NYGAARD AND FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed June 28, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 4 --

Appellant Eugene Chatman appeals an order of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his in forma pauperis complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will dismiss his appeal pursuant to the same statutory
provision.
Although difficult to decipher, Chatman’s initial pro se complaint, brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appears to allege that Judith Butler, the manager for the
RSI Management property where Chatman resided, called the police, who then removed
Chatman from his apartment. Chatman also alleged that several of the defendants
assaulted him. The District Court noted that Chatman had previously filed civil
complaints against some of the named defendants, and that the instant complaint appears
to arise from the same incident. The court found that Chatman’s complaint did not
provide sufficient information as to the defendants’ involvement in the alleged incidents.
Thus, the District Court dismissed the complaint, permitting Chatman to amend the
complaint if he further described (1) how each defendant caused him an injury; (2) the
nature of his claims against each defendant; and (3) the relief requested. Chatman filed
an Amended Complaint, again asserting general allegations that he was assaulted,
harassed, falsely imprisoned, and kidnapped by the defendants. The District Court found
that the Amended Complaint suffered from the same infirmities as the original, and
dismissed it with prejudice.
Chatman timely filed this appeal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. The decision whether to grant leave to file an appeal in forma

-- 2 of 4 --

pauperis depends solely on whether the applicant is economically eligible, not whether
the action or appeal is frivolous. See Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976).
The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the
benefit of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948). Rather, it is sufficient for the affiant to show that he is “unable to pay the costs of
his suit.” Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989).
Chatman’s affidavit of indigency indicates that he receives monthly social security
income of about $1000, and has $25 in a checking account. Chatman’s monthly expenses
total approximately $980. Based upon his limited income and monthly liabilities,
Chatman’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted.
When an appellant proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court must dismiss the appeal
if it is “frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A frivolous appeal has no arguable
basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We will dismiss this
appeal as frivolous.
After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the District Court that
Chatman has pled insufficient facts to state a claim that (1) the conduct complained of
was committed by a person acting under the color of state law, or (2) that the conduct
complained of deprived Chatman of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the law or
the Constitution of the United States. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir.
1993). Furthermore, Chatman’s complaint did not adequately state the time, place and
persons responsible for his alleged injuries. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195,

-- 3 of 4 --

1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Given these deficiencies, which Chatman failed to remedy with the
filing of his Amended Complaint, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

-- 4 of 4 --