Case ID: f-appx_534/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jack Wade WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-11191
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 1, 2013.
    Jack Wade Warren, Marion, IL, pro se.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jack Wade Warren, federal prisoner # 13477-077, appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for a hearing regarding a “Stipulation for Value and Claim to Arrested Property” that he had filed earlier. He argues on appeal that his stipulation and claim were filed in accordance with a valid admiralty rule, the Government’s failure to respond should be construed as its acquiescence to his stipulation and claim, and the district court erred by failing to enforce the admiralty rule.

Pro se pleadings are afforded liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). However, if a motion cannot be construed in such a way that relief is possible, it is a “meaningless, unauthorized motion” properly denied by the district court. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir.1994). As found by the district court, Warren’s stipulation, claim, and request for hearing were nonsensical and did not offer any coherent claim for relief. Thus, they were properly denied by the district court as meaningless, unauthorized motions. See id.

As Warren’s appeal is utterly without merit, it is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Warren that future repetitive, frivolous, or abusive filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.