2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-13-2012

Matthew Millhouse, Jr. v. Donna Zickefoose

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1254

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Matthew Millhouse, Jr. v. Donna Zickefoose" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1150.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1150
1

ALD-139 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1254

___________

MATTHEW T. MILLHOUSE, JR., Appellant

v.

DONNA ZICKEFOOSE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 11-cv-05454)

District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

____________________________________

Submitted for a Decision on the Issuance of a Certificate 

of Appealability and for Possible Summary Action 

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

March 29, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 13, 2012 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew T. Millhouse, Jr., is currently serving a twenty-year prison sentence 

imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio following 

his conviction on two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). 
2

Millhouse challenged his convictions in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the 

sentencing court dismissed it and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

denied his request for a certificate of appealability. Millhouse v. United States, No. 07-

3833 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2007).

Presently before this Court is the fourth habeas petition that Millhouse has since 

filed in the District of his current confinement seeking to attack his money laundering 

convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The District Court dismissed his three prior 

petitions for lack of habeas jurisdiction, and we affirmed each ruling. See Millhouse v. 

Zickefoose, 440 F. App’x 94 (3d Cir. 2011); Millhouse v. Zickefoose, 396 F. App’x 796 

(3d Cir. 2010); Millhouse v. Grondolsky, 331 F. App’x 108 (3d Cir. 2009). In this case, 

the District Court determined that Millhouse’s current § 2241 petition is materially 

indistinguishable from his prior petitions and dismissed that petition too for lack of 

habeas jurisdiction. We again agree, and will affirm, for reasons that we already have 

explained to Millhouse three times.

In addition to dismissing Millhouse’s petition, the District Court warned him (for a 

second time) that his systematic abuse of the writ might result in sanctions in the future. 

We now take this opportunity to issue such a warning of our own. Millhouse is advised 

that, if he files any duplicative or otherwise frivolous appeal in the future, we will 

consider imposing appropriate sanctions. Those sanctions may include an injunction 

barring Millhouse from filing documents in this Court without our prior leave. In that 

regard, we note that the United States Supreme Court recently directed its Clerk not to 
3

accept further filings from Millhouse, except on specified conditions, because he “has 

repeatedly abused th[at] Court’s process[.]” Millhouse v. Zickefoose, 132 S. Ct. 440 

(2011). That characterization fairly describes Millhouse’s conduct before this Court as 

well, and Millhouse is now on notice that any continuation of that conduct may lead to 

appropriate sanctions.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

Millhouse’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.