# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 15, 2012 * Decided March 14, 2012 Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 11-2081 CRAIG LEE MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KENNETH MORGAN, Defendant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 11-C-309 William C. Griesbach, Judge

. O R D E R Back in 2002, Craig Miller, a Wisconsin inmate , petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His prison warden at the time, Kenneth Morgan, was the named respondent. Miller contended that his convicti ons for battery, false imprisonment, and other crimes violate his constitutional rights. The st ate moved to dismiss the petition as untimely, see id. § 2244(d)(1), and the district court granted th e motion. Miller’s request for a certificate NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* The defendant was not served with proc ess in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 34(a)(2)(C).No. 11-2081 Page 2 of appealability was denied. Miller then challeng ed the dismissal of his petition in a series of frivolous motions and a federal civil-righ ts action against the State of Wisconsin. See Miller v. Wisconsin , 308 F. App’x 1, 2 (7th Cir. 2008); Miller v. Morgan , No. 02-cv-0096-bbc, 2009 WL 426233, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 19, 2009); Miller v. Morgan , No. 02-cv-0096-jcs, 2008 WL 4300925, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 17, 2008); Miller v. Morgan, 04-C-1137, 2005 WL 1364507, at *3 (E.D. Wis. June 7, 2005). For his litig iousness Miller “struck out” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Miller , 308 F. App’x at 2.
In March 2011, Miller tried again. He init iated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Morgan, as the named respon dent in his § 2254 petition, violated his constitutional rights back in 2002 when the stat e’s lawyers moved to dismiss that petition as untimely instead of addressing the merits. M iller seeks $8 billion in damages. The district court dismissed the lawsuit at screening as frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, explaining that an appeal, not a federal civil-rights lawsuit, is the means of challenging an adverse decision in a § 2254 matter. The court added that untime liness is a valid ground for dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal Miller challenges the dismissa l of his lawsuit. To have a claim for damages under § 1983, Miller must allege that Morg an, the only named defendant, was “personally responsible” for the alleged de privation of his constitutional rights. See Johnson v. Snyder , 444 F.3d 579, 583 (7th Cir. 2006); Palmer v. Marion County , 327 F.3d 588, 593–94 (7th Cir. 2003). He does not. Morgan was his custod ian, not an active participant in the § 2254 litigation. Thus, even if it was conceivable that a motion to dismiss Miller’s petition on the grounds of untimeliness could gi ve rise to a § 1983 claim, Mille r’s lawsuit fails to state a claim. The judgment is AFFIRMED . Miller is ORDERED to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. The response is due within 14 days of the date of this order.