Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40402/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stevie Wayne Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

REVISED FEBRUARY 8, 2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40402

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

STEVIE WAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:13-CV-223

USDC No. 9:99-CR-27

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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

February 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40402 Document: 00513372085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2016
No. 15-40402

2

Stevie Johnson, federal prisoner # 33435-077, was convicted of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing cocaine with 

intent to distribute and is serving a 240-month sentence. The district court 

determined that the instant filing was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion and dismissed it. Johnson requests a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) to appeal that dismissal. He insists that he did not file a § 2255 motion 

and that he is entitled to relief on his claim that he is actually innocent because 

he was prosecuted on the wrong indictment.

Johnson did not seek a COA in the district court, nor did the district 

court deny him a COA sua sponte. Because the district court has not made a 

COA ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over this 

appeal. See Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2255 PROCEEDINGS; Cardenas v. 

Thaler, 651 F.3d 442, 443–44 & n. 2 (5th Cir. 2011). We decline to remand to 

the district court for a COA ruling because a remand would be futile. See 

United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Rather, we 

DISMISS for want of jurisdiction. See id.

Contrary to Johnson’s belief, the label he placed on his pleading was not 

dispositive. See Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426–27 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Because Johnson raised a claim grounded in an “error[] that occurred at or 

prior to the sentencing,” the district court did not err by concluding that his 

suit arose under § 2255. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court likewise 

did not err by concluding that this § 2255 motion was unauthorized and successive. See In re Tatum, 233 F.3d 857, 858 (5th Cir. 2000); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(A). Jurists of reason would not debate the propriety of the dismissal of the instant suit as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See 

 Case: 15-40402 Document: 00513372085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2016
No. 15-40402

3

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The COA motion is DENIED

as moot.

Because Johnson has ignored this court’s warning against filing frivolous 

or repetitive filings, he is ordered to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of this 

court. He is barred from filing any pleading challenging his drug-related convictions in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the 

sanction is paid in full unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he 

seeks to file his pleadings. Johnson is further warned that any future frivolous, 

repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions.

 Case: 15-40402 Document: 00513372085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2016