1

CLD-236 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2039

___________

IN RE: HERBERT MCMILLIAN,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Misc. Action No. 11-mc-00063)

District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

____________________________________

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

July 14, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 12, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Herbert McMillian alleges that he was employed by Trans World Airlines Inc. 

(“TWA”), from 1975 to 1979 and that TWA wrongfully terminated him and denied him 

employment benefits. He has raised these claims multiple times over the years, including 

in TWA’s bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court disallowed his claims in 2004, 

but McMillian has continued to assert them. We have recognized in previous bankruptcy 
2

appeals that these claims were previously litigated, see, e.g., In re Trans World Airlines, 

363 F. App’x 213, 214-15 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming District Court’s dismissal of 

bankruptcy appeal as frivolous), and have held that they are barred by res judicata in at 

least one appeal from the dismissal of an independent action, see McMillian v. Trans 

World Airlines Inc.

In 2009, the District Court finally entered an injunction (which McMillian did not 

appeal) requiring McMillian to obtain its authorization before filing any complaint or 

other document regarding his 1979 termination and alleged denial of benefits. McMillian 

shortly thereafter sought permission to raise his claims again by amending a complaint, 

which the District Court denied. We summarily affirmed. 

, 331 F. App’x 103, 104 (3d Cir. 2009) (dismissing McMillan’s 

appeal as frivolous). 

See In re McMillian

McMillian then filed in the District Court the motion at issue here, which seeks yet 

again to raise his claims regarding his 1979 termination and alleged denial of benefits. 

The District Court denied the motion by order entered April 6, 2011. McMillian appeals, 

and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. That request is 

granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having granted McMillian leave 

to proceed IFP, we must determine whether this appeal should be dismissed as frivolous. 

, 398 F. 

App’x 709, 710 (3d Cir. 2010).

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We conclude that it should. An appeal is frivolous if it 

“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 

(1989). There is no arguable basis to challenge the District Court’s conclusion that 

McMillian’s claims have been previously litigated or its denial of McMillian’s motion for 
3

leave to raise them again. We caution McMillian that, if he persists in attempting to raise 

these claims in this Court, we will consider imposing sanctions, which may include an 

injunction barring filings in this Court without our prior authorization. 

Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal. McMillian’s motion to disqualify 

TWA’s counsel is denied.