KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

W.D. Pennsylvania

KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

DecidedAugust 22, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00100

StatusUnknown

This text of KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS (KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, (W.D. Pa. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID RYAN KAUFFMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 1:25-cv-100 ) v. ) ) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This pro se civil-rights case was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. Mr. Kauffman filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and his pro se complaint on April 15, 2025. ECF 1. While the IFP motion was pending, Mr. Kauffman paid the filing fee, and his complaint was docketed on July 1, 2025. ECF 10; ECF 11. Shortly after, the Magistrate Judge ordered the United States Marshals Service to serve Defendants. ECF 12. In the interim, however—after Mr. Kauffman had filed his IFP motion, but before it was granted and his complaint docketed—Mr. Kauffman sent Defendants waiver forms. ECF 16, p. 1 (waivers sent on June 2, 2025, and June 9, 2025). All but three waived service in response. Id. So on July 11, 2025, Mr. Kauffman moved to order those non-responding Defendants to pay for a private process server. Id. On July 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Mr. Kauffman’s motion, which he construed as a motion to appoint a process server. ECF 20. In that order, the Magistrate Judge explained that when Mr. Kauffman sent the waiver forms, his complaint was lodged but not docketed, and so the waivers were premature. Id. at p. 2. The Magistrate Judge further explained that since he had ordered the Marshals to serve all Defendants, there was no need for Mr. Kauffman to engage a private process server. Id. Mr. Kauffman filed objections to this order on August 2, 2025. ECF 26. No party has responded, so they are ready for resolution. The Court reviews findings of facts for clear error and matters of law de novo. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017). Mr. Kauffman argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by considering his complaint filed on July 1, 2025, instead of April 15, 2025; that the Magistrate Judge also failed to consider it filed on April 17, 2025 (when the Clerk’s Office apparently received Mr. Kauffman’s mailing of two more copies of the complaint); and that these issues prejudice him because his claims could be barred as untimely. ECF 26. Because the Magistrate Judge already ordered the Marshals to serve Defendants, there was no need to order another process server to do it in parallel. So the Court overrules Mr. Kauffman’s objections, and adopts Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo’s order at ECF 20. That’s not really what Mr. Kauffman objects to, though. As the above summary of Mr. Kauffman’s objections makes clear, he objects to an ancillary issue— the date his complaint was lodged on the docket. To that point, “[a]lthough a complaint is not formally filed until the filing fee is paid, . . . a complaint [is] constructively filed as of the date that the clerk received the complaint—as long as the plaintiff ultimately pays the filing fee or the district court grants the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.” McDowell v. Del. State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Percival v. Zimmerman, No. 24-2232, 2025 WL 1604502, at *2 (3d Cir. June 6, 2025) (“A complaint is considered filed when it is received by the Clerk.”). Mr. Kauffman paid the filing fee, so his “complaint is deemed filed for statute of limitations purposes on [April 15, 2025], the date on which he submitted it to the District Court along with his in forma pauperis application.” Schomburg v. Dow Jones & Co., 504 F. App’x 100, 102 (3d Cir. 2012). * * * Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo’s Order (ECF 20) is ADOPTED.

Dated: August 22, 2025 BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan United States District Judge

cc: David Ryan Kauffman 11 Forever Lane Paradise, PA 17562

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID RYAN KAUFFMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 1:25-cv-100 ) v. ) ) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This pro se civil-rights case was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. Mr. Kauffman filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and his pro se complaint on April 15, 2025. ECF 1. While the IFP motion was pending, Mr. Kauffman paid the filing fee, and his complaint was docketed on July 1, 2025. ECF 10; ECF 11. Shortly after, the Magistrate Judge ordered the United States Marshals Service to serve Defendants. ECF 12. In the interim, however—after Mr. Kauffman had filed his IFP motion, but before it was granted and his complaint docketed—Mr. Kauffman sent Defendants waiver forms. ECF 16, p. 1 (waivers sent on June 2, 2025, and June 9, 2025). All but three waived service in response. Id. So on July 11, 2025, Mr. Kauffman moved to order those non-responding Defendants to pay for a private process server. Id. On July 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Mr. Kauffman’s motion, which he construed as a motion to appoint a process server. ECF 20. In that order, the Magistrate Judge explained that when Mr. Kauffman sent the waiver forms, his complaint was lodged but not docketed, and so the waivers were premature. Id. at p. 2. The Magistrate Judge further explained that since he had ordered the Marshals to serve all Defendants, there was no need for Mr. Kauffman to engage a private process server. Id. Mr. Kauffman filed objections to this order on August 2, 2025. ECF 26. No party has responded, so they are ready for resolution. The Court reviews findings of facts for clear error and matters of law de novo. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017). Mr. Kauffman argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by considering his complaint filed on July 1, 2025, instead of April 15, 2025; that the Magistrate Judge also failed to consider it filed on April 17, 2025 (when the Clerk’s Office apparently received Mr. Kauffman’s mailing of two more copies of the complaint); and that these issues prejudice him because his claims could be barred as untimely. ECF 26. Because the Magistrate Judge already ordered the Marshals to serve Defendants, there was no need to order another process server to do it in parallel. So the Court overrules Mr. Kauffman’s objections, and adopts Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo’s order at ECF 20. That’s not really what Mr. Kauffman objects to, though. As the above summary of Mr. Kauffman’s objections makes clear, he objects to an ancillary issue— the date his complaint was lodged on the docket. To that point, “[a]lthough a complaint is not formally filed until the filing fee is paid, . . . a complaint [is] constructively filed as of the date that the clerk received the complaint—as long as the plaintiff ultimately pays the filing fee or the district court grants the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.” McDowell v. Del. State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1996); see also Percival v. Zimmerman, No. 24-2232, 2025 WL 1604502, at *2 (3d Cir. June 6, 2025) (“A complaint is considered filed when it is received by the Clerk.”). Mr. Kauffman paid the filing fee, so his “complaint is deemed filed for statute of limitations purposes on [April 15, 2025], the date on which he submitted it to the District Court along with his in forma pauperis application.” Schomburg v. Dow Jones & Co., 504 F. App’x 100, 102 (3d Cir. 2012). * * * Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo’s Order (ECF 20) is ADOPTED.

Dated: August 22, 2025 BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan United States District Judge

cc: David Ryan Kauffman 11 Forever Lane Paradise, PA 17562

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

KAUFFMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-v-pennsylvania-dept-of-corrections-pawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack