Message
×
loading..

Walker v. Guzzi , 156 F. App'x 535 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            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    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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    DPS-8                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL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