IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-11059

consolidated with No. 19-11138

CHRISTOPHER WOOTEN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CV-118

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Wooten, Texas prisoner # 2089854, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition challenging two felony convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) 

as a repeat offender. In 2012, in state case No. 13389, he was sentenced to 10 

years in prison, and in 2016, in state case No. 14804, he was sentenced to 13 

* 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

June 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-11059 Document: 00515443253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2020
No. 19-11059 c/w

No. 19-11138

2

years in prison. He contended that a 1983 misdemeanor DWI conviction was 

improperly used as a predicate for his repeat-offender DWI convictions.

In a July 2019 order (the July Order), the district court severed the 

claims, dismissing the challenge to No. 13389 as successive and unauthorized, 

and directing that the challenge to No. 14804 be considered in a new § 2254 

proceeding that would be stayed pending Wooten’s exhaustion of state 

remedies. Later, in a September 2019 order (the September Order), the district 

court denied a motion for reconsideration of the July Order. 

Wooten has moved this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) in 

appeal No. 19-11059 and appeal No. 19-11138. Because the COA motions 

relate to the same district court proceeding, we consolidate the appeals.

When Wooten’s pleadings are construed with utmost liberality, he may 

be deemed to assert that the district court deprived him of due process by 

dismissing the part of his § 2254 petition that challenged state conviction 

No. 13389; the order to sever and stay pending exhaustion was in error because 

state remedies are inadequate to give him all the relief he seeks; the 1983 state 

DWI conviction is invalid as a predicate offense; and the collateral order 

doctrine applies, though Wooten does not identify any particular “collateral 

order.” All of his claims challenge some aspect of the July Order. However, 

there is no timely notice of appeal from the July Order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the claims for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

213-14 (2007). 

Some of Wooten’s assertions about the severance and stay may be 

liberally construed as calling into question the September Order denying the 

motion to reconsider. There is a timely notice of appeal for these claims. The 

motion for reconsideration was not filed within the 28 days allowed under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). It was thus, in effect, a motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that neither extended the time for 

 Case: 19-11059 Document: 00515443253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2020
No. 19-11059 c/w

No. 19-11138

3

appealing the July order nor brought up that order for review. See FED. R. APP. 

P. 4(a)(4)(A); Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2010); see 

also In re Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 

1984). 

A COA is generally required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion

in a habeas case. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 887-88 (5th 

Cir. 2007). We will issue a COA to appeal the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion

only if Wooten shows that “a jurist of reason could conclude that the district 

court’s denial of [his] motion was an abuse of discretion.” Hernandez v. Thaler, 

630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Wooten’s bare assertions, unsupported by any coherent argument, fail to 

show that the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion is debatable

among jurists of reason. See id. A COA is denied as to the contentions that 

arguably call into question the denial of the postjudgment motion. In all other 

respects a COA is denied as moot. Wooten’s motion’s for appointment of 

counsel and for leave to file a second petition are also denied. 

This court has previously dismissed at least four appeals related to 

Wooten’s habeas proceedings because he tried to appeal unappealable orders. 

The district court and this court have warned Wooten that repetitive and 

frivolous filings would expose him to sanctions. See Wooten v. Davis, No. 18-

10501 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2019); Wooten v. Davis, No. 1:14-CV-72, 2018 WL 

10424865, 1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2018). He remains undeterred. 

Accordingly, we now impose upon Wooten a sanction of $100 (One 

Hundred Dollars), to be paid to the clerk of this court. Until the sanction is 

paid in full, Wooten is BARRED from filing in this court, or any court subject 

to this court’s jurisdiction, any original action, notice of appeal, motion, or other 

pleading seeking to challenge any existing state DWI conviction or sentence. 

Wooten is also WARNED that prior sanction warnings remain in effect, and 

 Case: 19-11059 Document: 00515443253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2020
No. 19-11059 c/w

No. 19-11138

4

that his failure to comply with them will subject him to additional and 

progressively more severe sanctions. Wooten is directed to review any pending 

matters and move to dismiss any actions or withdraw any pleadings that 

violate prior warnings.

APPEALS CONSOLIDATED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION; COA DENIED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 

AS MOOT; MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND TO FILE A SECOND 

PETITION DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED. 

 Case: 19-11059 Document: 00515443253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/05/2020