IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40340

Summary Calendar

ISHMAEL SALAHUDDIN, also known as Ismail Saladin,

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 Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CV-138

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ishmael Salahuddin, Texas prisoner # 1297582, was convicted by a jury

of five counts of attempted capital murder, one count of possession of cocaine

with intent to deliver, and one count of escape. He was sentenced to life in

prison on each capital murder count and the escape count and to 99 years on the

cocaine count.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 7, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-40340 Document: 00512334006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 13-40340

In 2008, Salahuddin filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which was dismissed

by the district court; this court denied him a certificate of appealability (COA). 

He filed three postjudgment motions pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, asserting that he was denied his right to counsel in

connection with a psychiatric evaluation and a competency proceeding, that he

was denied his right to represent himself, and that the State had committed

fraud on the court. The district court denied the motions as successive § 2254

petitions and rejected Salahuddin’s fraud claims. This court denied a COA as

to the first two motions. See Salahuddin v. Thaler, No. 11-40487 (August 1,

2011) (single-judge order); Salahuddin v. Thaler, No. 10-40914 (February 3,

2011) (single-judge order). A COA request remains pending in Case No. 12-

41124. 

Salahuddin then filed the subject motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In it, he reiterated his assertions

that he was denied his right to counsel and his right of self-representation and

argued that the State misrepresented to the court that (a) he had waived his

right of self-representation, and (b) the claim was not cognizable, was

procedurally defaulted, and was without merit. The district court denied the

sanctions motion, and Salahuddin appeals that ruling.

As a threshold matter, we deny a COA as unnecessary because the order

denying Rule 11 sanctions did not dispose of the merits of Salahuddin’s § 2254

petition. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). 

We review the denial of Rule 11 sanctions for an abuse of discretion. 

Friends for Am. Free Enterprise Ass’n v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 284 F.3d 575,

577-78 (5th Cir. 2002). In addition to failing to comply with the notice procedure

of Rule 11(c)(2), Salahuddin has not raised any issue of merit. The record shows

that Salahuddin withdrew a prior request to represent himself and consented to

representation of counsel, Mark Woerner. Thus, the State’s assertion that he

had waived his right of self-representation was supported factually and legally. 

2

 Case: 13-40340 Document: 00512334006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 13-40340

See Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Further,

the State correctly asserted that federal habeas relief was not available to the

extent that Salahuddin cited the Texas Constitution, see Estelle v. McGuire,

502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991), and Salahuddin offers only conclusory arguments that his

claim was not defaulted. In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion

by concluding that the State had not violated Rule 11. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b).

Because Salahuddin has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit, we

dismiss his appeal as frivolous. See Lyons v. Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir.

1987); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Salahuddin was previously cautioned that frivolous,

repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings could result in sanctions and restrictions

on his ability to file pleadings. Salahuddin did not heed that warning. 

Accordingly, he is ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of $100 to the clerk

of this court. Further, he is barred from filing in this court or in any court

subject to this court’s jurisdiction any challenge to the above-mentioned

convictions or sentences until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains

leave of the court in which he seeks to file such challenge. Salahuddin is

cautioned again that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings

in this court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him

to additional and progressively more severe sanctions.

COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED AS

FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3

 Case: 13-40340 Document: 00512334006 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2013