United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM J. PASSARELLA, JR., Plaintiff
CARDINAL FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant
D. Mariani United States District Judge.
background of this Order is as follows:
9, 2019, Plaintiff William Passarella filed a Complaint
against Cardinal Financial Corp. alleging that the Defendant
"caused Plaintiff to succeed a credit debt in his name
reaching the amount of $95, 713.32 without his
knowledge." (Doc. 1). Although Magistrate Judge Arbuckle
initially granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 4), on July 23, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge issued an Order revoking Plaintiff's
in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), explaining that Plaintiff has had "three
prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
or for failing to state a viable claim prior to initiating
this action" and that Plaintiff does not allege in his
current Complaint that he is under imminent serious physical
injury (Doc. 8). Magistrate Judge Arbuckle thus vacated his
prior Order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to
tender the full filing fee to the Court within 30 days of
July 23, 2019. (Id.).
August 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
"Motion Please Listen to What I Have to Say Regarding
Court's Restitution" (Doc. 9) and a second document
entitled "Motion to Listen to What I Have to Say"
(Doc. 10). The following day, Plaintiff filed a "Motion
for Consideration of this Court" (Doc. 11). On August
26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a "Petition and Affidavit for
Leave to Continue in forma pauperis" (Doc. 12).
September 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle issued a Report
and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that
the motions set forth above, as well as Plaintiffs motion for
appointment of counsel (Doc. 7), be deemed withdrawn for
failure to file an accompanying brief pursuant to the Middle
District of Pennsylvania's Local Rules. (Doc. 13, at
4-5). The R&R further recommends that the action be
dismissed for failure to pay the appropriate filing fee
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Id., at 2-4, 5).
Plaintiff has not filed any Objections to the pending
NOW, THIS 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020, upon
review of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's "R&R"
(Doc. 13) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY
1. The R&R (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated
2. Plaintiff's "Motion Please Listen to What I Have
to Say Regarding Court's Restitution" (Doc. 9);
"Motion to Listen to What I Have to Say" (Doc. 10);
"Motion for Consideration of this Court" (Doc. 11);
and "Petition and Affidavit for Leave to Continue in
forma pauperis" (Doc. 12) are DEEMED WITHDRAWN and
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) is
DEEMED WITHDRAWN and DISMISSED.
4. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE
 Even giving Plaintiff every benefit,
and thus attempting to analyze his motions (to the extent
that the filings may be considered motions) on their merits,
there is no basis to grant Plaintiffs requests. Plaintiffs
first motion simply requests that the Court consider
"reopening" the case and allow him to pay "20%
not the [w]hole $350" (Doc. 9). Similarly, Plaintiffs
second motion (Doc. 10) merely informs the Court that he does
not have $350. Neither document addresses the Magistrate
Judge's findings supporting the revocation of Plaintiffs
in forma pauperis status. Plaintiffs third motion
(Doc. 11) asserts that the three cases which formed the basis
for Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's finding that the
"three strikes" rule applies, while dismissed,
were, in fact, meritorious despite the Court's rulings in
those cases. This motion thus in essence requests that this
Court review the findings and conclusions of another Court.
This we cannot do. Finally, Plaintiffs "Petition and
Affidavit for Leave to Continue in forma pauperis" (Doc.
12) appeals the Magistrate Judge's revocation of his
in forma pauperis status to this Court and requests