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- 416 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

___________ No. 13

- 1880

___________ *RUSSELL KEITH HILL; ZACHARY JOHNSON

v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ; ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; MICHAEL T. PARKER, U nited States Magistrat e Judge; KEI TH STARRETT, United States District Judge, and (all) or (any) Other United States Magistrate Judges and United States Judges in the United State District Courts of Mississippi; JAMES L. DENNIS, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; E. GRADY JOLLY, JR., United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; CAROLYN DINEEN KING, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; JERRY E. SMITH, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and (all) or (any) Other United States Circuit Judges in/or, and/or for the United State Court of Appeals of t he Fifth Circuit; PHYLLIS J. PYLES, Attorney and Director, Torts Branch United States Department of Justice; ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court of Columbia ZACHARY JOHNSON, Appellant (*Dismissed per July 9, 2013 Clerk’s Order)

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 13

- cv
- 01003 ) District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

________________________________ ____ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)2

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 6, 2013
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 13, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Zachary Johnson, a Mississippi state pri soner, filed a pro se complaint, naming as
defen dants several federal judges, Justice Department officials , and the Attorney General of Mississippi . As the District Court noted, hi s allegations appear t o arise out of the
denial of his habeas petition , the rejection of his tort actions, and the dismissal of claims
that he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In particular, Johnson a lleged that the
defendants “deprive[d]” him of his “right to be heard,” “exceeded their capacity” in adjudicating his tort claim, and “pervert[ed] the facts in [his] cases, and appl[ied] inapplicable case law precedent to avoid granting relief.” Co mpl., 4

- 6 (internal punctuation omitted). He asserted th at these actions “are violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.” Id. at 4. The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), holding that “Johnson may not contest the denial of habeas relief or the dismissal of his § 1983 or tort claim through a separate petition to this Court.” The3

District Court also held that “because Johnson cannot cure the defects in his complaint by amendment, granting him leave to do so wou ld be futile.” Johnson appealed.
Because we granted Johnson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must screen this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i) to determine whether it should be
dis missed as frivolous. An appeal is frivolous when i t “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Our review confirms that there is no arguable basis to challeng e the District Court’s decision. Indeed, Johnson’s challenges to the denial of his habeas petition, the rejection of his tort actions,
and the dismissal his § 1983 claims should first be brought by appeal ing to the appropriate federal circuit court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291; 2253(a) ; cf. Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 , 486

- 87 (1994). We also ag ree with the District Court that there was no need to provide Johnson with leave to amend before dismissing his complaint because it is apparent that amendment would have been futile. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny , 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i)

.