IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NORRIS LYNN FISHER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-684 

USDC No. 4:10-CR-74-1

Before SMITH, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norris Lynn Fiser, federal prisoner # 41251-177, is serving a 240-month 

sentence for his convictions of conspiring to commit mail fraud and three 

counts of committing mail fraud. He seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) 

to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for (1) relief under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from the denial of his unsuccessful 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion; (2) leave to amend his Rule 60(b) motion and for his 

 

* 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 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10980 Document: 00514686540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2018
No. 17-10980

2

memorandum in support of his Rule 60(b) motion to exceed 30 pages; (3) leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); (4) the appointment of counsel; and (5) a 

transfer of his proceedings to the Southern District of New York. 

To obtain a COA, Fisher must make “a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 483–84 (2000). Because Fisher is appealing procedural rulings, we will 

issue a COA only if he shows that “jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right 

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

In his various filings, Fisher raised claims challenging his conviction, 

sentence, and the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion on the merits. We 

construe those claims as unauthorized successive § 2255 motions over which 

the district court lacked jurisdiction. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 

530–33 (2005); United States v. Hernandes, 708 F.3d 680, 681 (5th Cir. 2013). 

Fisher’s challenge to the district court’s denial of those claims does not deserve 

encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 

(2003). 

Fisher also alleged errors in the district court’s handling of his § 2255 

proceedings. Although those claims constituted bona fide requests for Rule 

60(b) relief, Fisher has not identified any abuse of discretion in the district 

court’s denial of his motion, and jurists of reason would not debate the district 

court’s denial of those claims. Fisher’s motion for a COA to appeal the district 

court’s denial of his unauthorized successive § 2255 motions and Rule 60(b) 

motion is DENIED. 

Fisher does not need a COA to appeal the district court’s denials of his 

motions for leave to proceed IFP, for the appointment of counsel (to the extent 

 Case: 17-10980 Document: 00514686540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2018
No. 17-10980

3

Fisher actually sought the appointment of counsel), and for a transfer (to the 

extent Fisher actually sought a transfer). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); 

Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). His motion for a COA to challenge 

those decisions is DENIED as unnecessary. However, Fisher does not assert 

that the district court erred in denying any of those motions and has 

abandoned any challenge he might have raised. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 

F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s denial of those motions is 

AFFIRMED.

With his appeal, Fisher has filed motions for the appointment of counsel 

and to amend his motion for a COA. Those motions are DENIED.

Fisher also has filed a motion that effectively asks this court to issue a 

writ of mandamus to the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Northern 

District of Texas, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District 

of Texas, the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and United States District 

Judge Barbara Lynn ordering release of information he has requested, and to 

the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ordering

an investigation. That motion is DENIED. See In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 

(5th Cir. 1987). 

Finally, Fisher has moved for this court to vacate his sentence and order 

his release from prison. Fisher appears to attempt to invoke original habeas 

corpus jurisdiction in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2241 

does not grant federal courts of appeals jurisdiction to entertain an original 

petition for habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. To the extent individual judges 

of this court may retain jurisdiction to entertain such a petition, see Felker v. 

Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 660–61 & n.3 (1996), the members of this panel decline 

to do so. Fisher’s motion is DENIED. 

 Case: 17-10980 Document: 00514686540 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/17/2018
No. 17-10980

4

Fisher is warned that repeated filing of frivolous challenges to his 

convictions and sentences in this court, or any court subject to this court’s 

jurisdiction, may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, 

monetary sanctions, and possibly denial of access to the judicial system.

 Case: 17-10980 Document: 00514686540 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/17/2018