Bricker v. Pennsylvania ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-20-2007
Bricker v. Comm of PA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4713
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Bricker v. Comm of PA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 903.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/903
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-255 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4713
________________
RONALD L. BRICKER,
Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
JOSEPH H. KLEINFELTER; JUSTIN J. MCSHANE;
MARK F. BAYLEY; JEN BEVAN; R. MARK THOMAS;
DIANE MORGAN
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-CV-01729)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Possible Summary
Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 7, 2007
BEFORE: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed June 20, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Ronald L. Bricker appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, dismissing his complaint without prejudice, and from an
order denying his motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss
the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Bricker’s complaint in the District Court was purportedly filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. However, the allegations of his complaint concerned the manner in which
he was convicted, and his continued confinement. The District Court correctly concluded
that to the extent Appellant was challenging the fact or duration of his conviction or
sentence, his remedy is in the form of habeas, not 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (“whenever the challenge ultimately attacks the
‘core of habeas’--the validity of the continued conviction or the fact or length of the
sentence--a challenge, however denominated and regardless of the relief sought, must be
brought by way of habeas corpus petition”).
Because Bricker’s appeal is legally frivolous, we must dismiss it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1
1
We further find no error in the District Court’s decision to deny Bricker’s motion for
reconsideration.
2