Case Name: William M. BRYSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. Joe KEFFER; United States Attorney Executive Office; United States Department of Justice, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-15
Citations: 357 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 08-30891
Parties: William M. BRYSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. Joe KEFFER; United States Attorney Executive Office; United States Department of Justice, Respondents-Ap-pellees.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
William M. BRYSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. Joe KEFFER; United States Attorney Executive Office; United States Department of Justice, Respondents-Ap-pellees.
No. 08-30891
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2009.
William M. Bryson, Jr., Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William M. Bryson, Jr., federal prisoner # 95662-071, appeals the striking of his pleadings for failure to comply with the sanction order issued in Bryson v. United States, No. 1:08-CV-0142 (W.D.La. Mar. 25, 2008). Bryson argues that the district court abused its discretion in construing his pleadings as a request for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 relief and, as such, abused its discretion in enforcing the earlier-imposed sanctions.
The sanction order in Bryson v. United States, No. 1:08-CV-0142, specified that, on account of his filing numerous frivolous collateral challenges to his sentence, Bryson was required to pay a $100 fine and seek written authorization from a district judge before filing "any pleading." The district court's construction of Bryson's pleadings was therefore not germane to its order striking them. Bryson made no attempt to comply with this order, and his appeal from the sanction order was dismissed. The record discloses no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court. See Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.