Case Name: Juan Jose ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rachel CHAPA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-12
Citations: 685 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 16-40065 Summary Calendar
Parties: Juan Jose ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rachel CHAPA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 685
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Juan Jose ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rachel CHAPA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
No. 16-40065 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 12, 2017
Juan Jose Zuniga-Hernandez, Pro Se
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner-Appellant Juan Jose Zuniga-Hernandez, federal prisoner # 23429-034, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court's dismissal of the petition was twofold. The court initially determined that the initial pleading was an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion because it failed to meet the requirements of the savings clause of § 2255(e). See Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001)). Following consideration of Zuniga-Hernandez's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court determined that no relief was warranted because the claims raised therein already had been rejected by this court.
A § 2241 petition that raises "the same legal issue" addressed and resolved in a prior filing is considered to be abusive and should be dismissed. United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Rich v. Tamez, 489 Fed.Appx. 754 (5th Cir. 2012). We review a district court's decision to dismiss a habeas petition as an abuse of the writ for an abuse of discretion. James v. Cain, 56 F.3d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1995).
Zuniga-Hemandez's argument that in light of Watson, he was convicted of a nonexistent offense, was rejected by the district court and by this court. In reaching this conclusion, this court impliedly considered and rejected the argument that Zuniga-Hernandez now advances. See Zuniga-Hernandez v. Childress, 548 Fed.Appx. 147, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the § 2241 peti tion. See Tubwell, 37 F.3d at 177-78. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We CAUTION Zuniga-Hernandez that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restriction's on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court's jurisdiction.
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.