2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-29-2015

Anthony Mina v. Thomas Hogan

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

This September 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

"Anthony Mina v. Thomas Hogan" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 1031.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/1031
DLD-338 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1642

___________

ANTHONY STOCKER MINA,

 Appellant 

v.

DA THOMAS HOGAN; DAWSON R. MUTH; 

GOLDBERG MEANIX MUTH & MCCALLIN LAW FIRM;

JUDGE THOMAS G. GAVIN

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. 2-14-mc-00221)

District Court Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith

____________________________________

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

September 17, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 29, 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

Anthony Stocker Mina sought permission to file in forma pauperis a motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to overturn a 2008 state-court conviction for 

simple assault. The District Court granted Mina’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

and then sua sponte denied the Rule 60 motion and dismissed his action.

1

 The District 

Court advised Mina that, to challenge his state-court conviction, he must seek habeas 

corpus relief via a properly filed petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mina appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d 

Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial questions. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

The District Court properly dismissed Mina’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking to 

overturn his state-court conviction. As the District Court advised Mina, he cannot 

challenge his state-court conviction in federal court under Rule 60(b). Instead, any

attempt to overturn his state-court conviction must be brought, if at all, in a habeas corpus 

petition. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that sole federal 

remedy for a state prisoner contesting fact or duration of confinement is a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254). 

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

 

1 The District Court did so “without prejudice to him filing a habeas corpus petition.” 

The District Court also directed the clerk to provide Mina with a current § 2254 form and 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis.