Case Name: Tyrone YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-02
Citations: 690 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 16-30601
Parties: Tyrone YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
Judges: Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
Tyrone YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
No. 16-30601
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 2, 2017
Tyrone Young, Pro Se
Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Young, Louisiana prisoner # 110405, appeals following the district court's transfer of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application to this court, and its subsequent denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion wherein he challenged the court's transfer order. Because the district court did not enter a final order disposing of the merits of Young's request for habeas relief in this case, a certificate of appealability (COA) is not required for his appeal. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). We review the denial of Young's motion for an abuse of discretion. See Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010).
Young argues that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AED-PA), which established requirements for habeas corpus proceedings as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, applies only in capital habeas proceedings, and thus is inapplicable in his non-capital case. It is well established that the AEDPA applies to "all ha-beas corpus proceedings in the federal courts" filed after its enactment, even those submitted by individuals convicted of noncapital offenses. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (applying the AEDPA to non-capital case). Accordingly, no abuse of discretion has been shown. IT IS ORDERED that a COA is DENIED as unnecessary and that the transfer order of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Fulton, 780 F.3d at 689. Young's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.