-
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-9-2005 Walker v. Guzzi Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2525 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Walker v. Guzzi" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 131. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/131 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. DPS-8 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-2525 ________________ EDWIN WALKER, Appellant v. WILLIAM GUZZI ____________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-6193) District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno _______________________________________ Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 14, 2005 ROTH, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES (Filed: December 9, 2005) _______________________ OPINION _______________________ PER CURIAM Edwin Walker appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint against William Guzzi for lack of service. Walker filed a complaint against several defendants including William Guzzi. The District Court severed Walker’s claims against Guzzi, created a new case, and subsequently dismissed the claims against Guzzi for lack of service.1 Walker filed a timely notice of appeal. Because Walker is proceeding in forma pauperis, we must 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 (1989). In his complaint, Walker alleged that Guzzi committed perjury. However, Guzzi is entitled to immunity as a witness. See Brisco v. LaHue,
460 U.S. 325(1983). Moreover, to the extent that success on this claim would imply the invalidity of Walker’s conviction, his claims are not cognizable. Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Thus, Walker’s allegations against Guzzi fail to state a claim. For the above reasons, we will dismiss the appeal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Walker’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. 1 Walker was unable to supply an address for Guzzi. 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 05-2525
Citation Numbers: 156 F. App'x 535
Judges: Roth, Fuentes, Van Antwerpen
Filed Date: 12/9/2005
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024