2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-29-2015 

# A n thon y M in a v . Thom a s H og a n

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s S e pt e mbe r i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" A n thon y M in a v . Thom as H o g a n " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1031. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/1031

### DLD

- 338 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 5

- 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 Eas tern 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 )

_________ OPINIO N *



### _________ PER CURIAM

* 

### This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and purs uant 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 proce ed in forma pauperis

a nd 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. § 1 2 91. 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 prese nts 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 co nviction 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 st ate 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.” T he District Court also directed the clerk to provide Mina with a current § 2254 form and an application to p roceed in forma pauperis.