
    Batsaihan PURVEEGIIN, Appellant v. USCA 3RD CIRCUIT COURTS, Corrupt Administratives; Marcia M. Waldron, USCA 3rd Cir. Court; Lynn Lopez, USCA 3rd Cir. Legal Aid; Bradford Baldus, USCA 3rd Cir. Legal Aid; USCA 3rd Cir. Clerk Administration, USCA 3rd Cir. Clerks Office.
    No. 06-4836.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) April 26, 2007.
    Filed June 13, 2007.
    Batsaihan Purveegiin, Ulaan Baatar City, Mongolia, pro se.
    Joel M. Sweet, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for USCA 3rd Circuit Courts, Corrupt Administratives; Marcia M. Waldron, USCA 3rd Cir. Court; Lynn Lopez, USCA 3rd Cir. Legal Aid; Bradford Baldus, USCA 3rd Cir. Legal Aid; USCA 3rd Cir. Clerk Administration, USCA 3rd Cir. Clerks Office.
    Before: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Batsaihan Purveegiin, representing himself, sued this Court, or at least its “corrupt administratives” and “administration,” as well as members of the Court’s staff. His allegations focused on how his pending appeals were being handled. Among other things, he contended that his counsel in another case had seduced, or been seduced by, Court personnel.

The District Court denied Purveegiiris request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed Purveegiiris complaint as legally frivolous. Purveegiin filed a notice of appeal, opening an appeal that proceeds separately. In the District Court, Purveegiin then filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The District Court transferred the motion to this Court for disposition. Purveegiin appeals from the order transferring his motion and requests appointment of counsel.

Purveegiiris appeal is without merit in fact or law. Having already denied Purveegiiris first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the District Court determined that this Court would be the appropriate forum for Purveegiin’s renewed attempt to seek in forma pauperis status. Had the District Court merely-denied the motion, Purveegiin would have been permitted to file his motion in this Court. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5). The transfer put the motion before us without Purveegiin having to refile it. We do not find error in the District Court’s decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss Purveegiin’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and deny his motion for appointment of counsel.  