Millhouse v. Levi

Third Circuit

Millhouse v. Levi

267 F. App'x 140

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2008

Docket07-4048

StatusUnpublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 267 F. App'x 140 (Millhouse v. Levi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Millhouse v. Levi, 267 F. App'x 140 (3d Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*141 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Kareem Millhouse filed a motion entitled “Motion for Court to Investigate Federal Detention Center Envolvement [sic] in a Criminal Conspiracy to Retaliate, Humiliate Threaten and Neglect Plaintiff Request for Administrative Relief.” The District Court denied the motion without prejudice because it appeared that Mill-house was making the same allegations as those in an already pending case, Mill-house v. Arbsak, E.D. Pa. No. 07-cv-1442. After the District Court denied Mill-house’s motion for reconsideration, Mill-house filed a timely notice of appeal.

Because Millhouse is proceeding in for-ma pauperis on this appeal, we must analyze his appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), we must dismiss an appeal if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

In his motion to investigate, Millhouse alleged that he had been in administrative detention for fourteen months and was denied access to recreation, the law library, personal property, and medical treatment. He stated that staff had been assaultive and he had been poisoned. In his motion for reconsideration, Millhouse did not dispute that the allegations were duplicative; he argued that Millhouse v. Arbsak was a civil matter and he was requesting a criminal investigation. However, there is no federal right to require the government to initiate criminal proceedings. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973); U.S. v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 173-74 (3d Cir.1973).

Because the appeal lacks legal merit, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

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

*141 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Kareem Millhouse filed a motion entitled “Motion for Court to Investigate Federal Detention Center Envolvement [sic] in a Criminal Conspiracy to Retaliate, Humiliate Threaten and Neglect Plaintiff Request for Administrative Relief.” The District Court denied the motion without prejudice because it appeared that Mill-house was making the same allegations as those in an already pending case, Mill-house v. Arbsak, E.D. Pa. No. 07-cv-1442. After the District Court denied Mill-house’s motion for reconsideration, Mill-house filed a timely notice of appeal.

Because Millhouse is proceeding in for-ma pauperis on this appeal, we must analyze his appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), we must dismiss an appeal if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

In his motion to investigate, Millhouse alleged that he had been in administrative detention for fourteen months and was denied access to recreation, the law library, personal property, and medical treatment. He stated that staff had been assaultive and he had been poisoned. In his motion for reconsideration, Millhouse did not dispute that the allegations were duplicative; he argued that Millhouse v. Arbsak was a civil matter and he was requesting a criminal investigation. However, there is no federal right to require the government to initiate criminal proceedings. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973); U.S. v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 173-74 (3d Cir.1973).

Because the appeal lacks legal merit, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F. App'x 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millhouse-v-levi-ca3-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack