Case Name: Edwin WALKER, Appellant, v. William GUZZI
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-09
Citations: 156 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 05-2525
Parties: Edwin WALKER, Appellant, v. William GUZZI.
Judges: Before ROTH, FUENTES and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
Edwin WALKER, Appellant, v. William GUZZI.
No. 05-2525.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Oct. 14, 2005.
Decided Dec. 9, 2005.
Edwin Walker, Dallas, PA, pro se.
Beth A. Smith, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, for William Guzzi.
Before ROTH, FUENTES and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Edwin Walker appeals the District Court's order dismissing his complaint against William Guzzi for lack of service. Walker filed a complaint against several defendants including William Guzzi. The District Court severed Walker's claims against Guzzi, created a new case, and subsequently dismissed the claims against Guzzi for lack of service. Walker filed a timely notice of appeal.
Because Walker is proceeding in forma pauperis, we must we must analyze his appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), we must dismiss an appeal if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
In his complaint, Walker alleged that Guzzi committed perjury. However, Guzzi is entitled to immunity as a witness. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). Moreover, to the extent that success on this claim would imply the invalidity of Walker's conviction, his claims are not cognizable. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Thus, Walker's allegations against Guzzi fail to state a claim.
For the above reasons, we will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Walker's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
. Walker was unable to supply an address for Guzzi.