2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-13-2012 

# M a tthew M i l l hou se , J r

. v . D onn a Z ick

efo o se
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-1254

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M a tthe w M i l l hous e , J r

. v . D onn a Z ick efoos e " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1150. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/11501



### 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- 139 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 St ates 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 Possi ble 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 twe nty

- 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 2 8 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 o f 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 Distric t 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 explain ed 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 war ning 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 thi s Court without our prior leave. In that regard, we note that the United States Supreme Court recently directed its Clerk not to3



### accept further filings from Millhouse, except on specified conditions, because he “has repeatedly abused th[at] Court’s proces s[.]” 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 f oregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Millhouse’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.