DLD-416 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, United States Magistrate Judge; KEITH 

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 the 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 prisoner, filed a pro se complaint, naming as 

defendants several federal judges, Justice Department officials, and the Attorney General 

of Mississippi. As the District Court noted, his allegations appear to 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 alleged 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.” Compl., 4-6 (internal 

punctuation omitted). He asserted that 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.” The 
3

District Court also held that “because Johnson cannot cure the defects in his complaint by 

amendment, granting him leave to do so would 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 

dismissed as frivolous. An appeal is frivolous when it “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 challenge 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 appealing 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 agree 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).