Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50018/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris Lenal Stallworth
Appellant
William Stephens, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50018

Summary Calendar

CHRIS LENAL STALLWORTH,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:14-CV-387

Before JONES, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chris Lenal Stallworth, Texas prisoner # 1630056, moves for a certificate 

of appealability (COA) and to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the 

district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the judgment dismissing as time barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50018 Document: 00513231727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2015
No. 15-50018

2

petition challenging his conviction for burglary of a habitation. See Ochoa 

Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). 

The district court did not expressly determine whether a COA should 

issue from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. Ordinarily, we would conclude 

that we lack jurisdiction over the present appeal and remand. See Sonnier v. 

Johnson, 161 F.3d 941, 945-46 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Youngblood, 

116 F.3d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1997). However, we decline to remand this case 

to the district court for a COA ruling1 because the district court lacks 

jurisdiction over this Rule 60(b) motion. The motion, which was not directed 

to the procedural ruling and did not allege a defect in the integrity of the 

proceedings, was really a successive § 2254 application. See Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-33 (2005); In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 

1998). Thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion 

without authorization from this court, which was neither sought nor given. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). 

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Stallworth’s 

motions for a COA and for IFP are DENIED AS MOOT.

 

1 Because we conclude that remand is inappropriate for other reasons, we need not 

address whether the district court’s January 9, 2015 order referring to its prior denial of a 

COA, denying IFP status, and concluding that an appeal would be frivolous constitutes an 

implicit denial of an application for COA.

 Case: 15-50018 Document: 00513231727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2015