Case Name: Clinton W. DELESPINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 04-20993
Parties: Clinton W. DELESPINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
Clinton W. DELESPINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-20993.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2006.
Clinton W. Delespine, Beeville, TX, pro se.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clinton W. Delespine, Texas prisoner # 187450, has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his 1963 conviction and sentence for murder as successive.
To obtain a COA, Delespine must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court has denied relief on procedural grounds, the applicant must show "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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
Delespine does not challenge the district court's dismissal of his § 2254 application as successive and argues only the merits of his habeas claims. Therefore, he has abandoned the issue and has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's procedural ruling. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999); Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. Accordingly, Delespine's motion for a COA is DENIED. Delespine's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is also DENIED.
This is the seventh COA motion in which Delespine has failed to challenge the district court's reasons for dismissing his habeas application. Further, this court previously warned Delespine that further frivolous applications would invite the imposition of sanctions. See Delespine v. Cockrell, No. 01-20846 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2001) (unpublished). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Delespine pay a monetary sanction of $200 to the Clerk of this Court. Delespine is BARRED from filing in this court or in any court subject to this court's jurisdiction any pleading that challenges the aforementioned conviction and sentence until the sanction is paid in full. Delespine is CAUTIONED that any future frivolous or repetitive filing in this court or any court subject to this court's jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions. Delespine should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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.