Phillip Tarver v. Keisha Fisher ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • ALD-224                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 22-1761
    ___________
    PHILLIP TARVER,
    Appellant
    v.
    KEISHA FISHER, ADMIN.;
    SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00012)
    District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
    ____________________________________
    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
    August 18, 2022
    Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: October 17, 2022)
    _________
    OPINION*
    _________
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    PER CURIAM
    Phillip Tarver, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his
    complaint for failure to state a claim. We will affirm.
    Tarver is incarcerated at South Woods State Prison in New Jersey. In January
    2022, he filed a form complaint in the District of New Jersey, checking a box that
    asserted that court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the federal civil-rights statute, 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    . He claimed that he is “being held in violation of an erroneous sentence that has
    already been adjudicated in [his] favor by a state court vacating [his] convictions.”
    Compl. 4, ¶ 4(b). He styled his filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    60(b), asserting that he sought to correct a “mistake” made by the state trial court in
    adjudicating his post-conviction relief petition, and asked the District Court to vacate his
    convictions. 
    Id. at 6
    .
    The District Court screened and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
    claim, pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii). The District Court explained that
    motions under Rule 60(b) should generally be raised in the court that issued the
    purportedly mistaken decision. See Dist. Ct. Op. 3 (citing Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White,
    
    536 F.3d 244
    , 254 (3d Cir. 2008)). The opinion also explained that Tarver’s challenge to
    his convictions cannot be raised under the guise of § 1983, but must be brought according
    to the rules established for “a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
    2
    court.” Id. at 4 (quoting 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    ). Accordingly, the District Court found that
    Tarver’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Tarver now appeals that decision.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review dismissal pursuant
    to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) under the same de novo standard of review that we apply to our
    review of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
    Allah v. Seiverling, 
    229 F.3d 220
    , 223 (3d Cir. 2000). To avoid dismissal, a complaint
    must set out “sufficient factual matter” to show that its claims are facially plausible. See
    Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009). We accept all factual allegations in the
    complaint as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
    Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 
    679 F.3d 116
    , 120 (3d Cir. 2012), and we construe Tarver’s
    pro se complaint liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 
    551 U.S. 89
    , 94 (2007) (per curiam).
    We agree with the District Court that Tarver failed to state a claim for relief. To
    the extent that he invoked Rule 60(b) to correct a “mistake,” that procedural rule is not an
    appropriate mechanism for a federal court to review a state-court decision. To the extent
    that he sought to employ § 1983 to invalidate his convictions and secure his release, as
    the District Court here fully explained, the proper manner of lodging a challenge in
    federal court to his continued confinement is via habeas corpus, according to the
    procedures established under § 2254 and related statutes.1 See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
    1
    Like the District Court, we express no opinion on the merits or timeliness of any future
    petition Tarver may file under § 2254.
    
    3 U.S. 475
    , 500 (1973). Thus, this appeal presents no substantial question, and we will
    summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 
    650 F.3d 246
    , 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
    4