Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-04048/USCOURTS-ca3-07-04048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

ALD-138 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-4048

___________

KAREEM HASSAN MILLHOUSE,

 Appellant

v.

TROY LEVI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Misc. No. 07-mc-00106)

District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 22, 2008

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: February 27, 2008)

_________

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

Case: 07-4048 Document: 003147096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2008
2

denied the motion without prejudice because it appeared that Millhouse was making the

same allegations as those in an already pending case, Millhouse v. Arbsak, E.D. Pa.

No. 07-cv-1442. After the District Court denied Millhouse’s motion for reconsideration,

Millhouse filed a timely notice of appeal.

Because Millhouse is proceeding in forma 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 (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. Roland D., 410 U.S. 614, 619

(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).

Case: 07-4048 Document: 003147096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2008