Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-18-2007 Stackhouse v. Kravich Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3956

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Stackhouse v. Kravich" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1259. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1259

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

BLD-159 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 06-3956 ________________ STEPHEN STACKHOUSE, Appellant vs. JOHN KRAVICH, Public Defender, Montgomery County ____________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-03118) District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage _______________________________________ Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) March 22, 2007 Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES Filed: April 18, 2007 _______________________ OPINION _______________________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Stephen Stackhouse, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against public defender John Kravich. The complaint alleges that Kravich did not adequately defend Stackhouse against state criminal charges. Stackhouse requests money damages and that his state conviction be overturned. We agree with the District Court that Kravich is not a proper party to this action, see Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981), and that even if he were, the instant challenge to the validity of the state conviction would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

As the appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.