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 convictions for battery, false imprisonment, and other

crimes violate his constitutional rights. The state moved to dismiss the petition as untimely,

see id. § 2244(d)(1), and the district court granted the 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 process 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 FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 11-2081 Page 2

of appealability was denied. Miller then challenged the dismissal of his petition in a series

of frivolous motions and a federal civil-rights 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 litigiousness 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 initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming that Morgan, as the named respondent in his § 2254 petition, violated his

constitutional rights back in 2002 when the state’s lawyers moved to dismiss that petition as

untimely instead of addressing the merits. Miller 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 untimeliness is a valid ground for dismissing a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

On appeal Miller challenges the dismissal of his lawsuit. To have a claim for

damages under § 1983, Miller must allege that Morgan, the only named defendant, was

“personally responsible” for the alleged deprivation 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 custodian, 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 give rise to a § 1983 claim, Miller’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.