2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-5-2015

Duane Miller v. EEOC

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This May 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 2015 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

"Duane Miller v. EEOC" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 454.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/454
ALD-168 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-2787

___________

DUANE MILLER,

Appellant

v.

EEOC, Pittsburgh Area Office

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 2:14-cv-00347)

District Judge: Honorable Mark R. Hornak

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance 

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

April 16, 2015

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 5, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Pro se appellant Duane Miller appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because Miller’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will grant 

Appellee’s motion to summarily affirm the District Court’s order. 

I.

In 2010, Miller filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”), asserting that his former employer, Keystone Blind Association 

(“KBA”), discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964. After the EEOC notified Miller that it did not find that KBA 

committed any violations, Miller filed a complaint against KBA in the District Court. 

The District Court granted KBA’s summary judgment motion in 2013, and we thereafter 

affirmed. See Miller v. Keystone Blind Assoc./TPM, 547 F. App’x 100, 101 (3d Cir. 

2013) (per curiam).

Miller filed the current lawsuit in March 2014, alleging that the EEOC’s handling 

of his 2010 charge had violated his right to a fair investigation. The Magistrate Judge 

issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. In particular, the 

Magistrate Judge determined that Miller could not bring a cause of action against the 

EEOC under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 
3

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), challenging its processing of his charge. 

After considering Miller’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report, the District Court 

adopted the report and issued an order dismissing Miller’s complaint on April 25, 2014. 

Miller timely appealed, and opposes Appellee’s motion for summary action. 

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of the District 

Court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a 

claim is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order if there is no substantial question presented in 

the appeal. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

After careful review of the record, we discern no error in the District Court’s 

dismissal of Miller’s complaint. As the Magistrate Judge concluded, “no cause of action 

against the EEOC exists for challenges to its processing of a claim.” Scheerer v. Rose 

State Coll., 950 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., 

Jordan v. Summers, 205 F.3d 337, 342 (7th Cir. 2000); Baba v. Japan Travel Bureau 

Int’l, Inc., 111 F.3d 2, 6 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam). The proper course of action for a 

plaintiff who contends that his employment discrimination complaint has been 

mishandled is to bring a lawsuit against his employer. See Jordan, 205 F.3d at 342. 
4

Miller has already brought such a lawsuit, and his lack of success there does not give rise 

to a claim against the EEOC. 

Ordinarily, a district court should not sua sponte dismiss a complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his 

complaint. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002). 

However, because amendment would be futile in this case, dismissal without leave to 

amend was proper. See id. Accordingly, we will grant Appellee’s motion for summary 

action and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. 

Miller’s miscellaneous motions for relief are denied.