Court Opinion

ID: 9839931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:00:57.336686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:07.384573
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20182         Document: 00516895252             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                      ____________                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                       No. 23-20182                              September 14, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                          Clerk

   Overille Denton Thompson, Jr.,

                                                                    Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
   Correctional Institutions Division,

                                                Respondent—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-1197
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Overille Denton Thompson, Jr., Texas prisoner # 2068451, moves for
   a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.
   § 2254 application challenging his convictions for possession of heroin with
   intent to distribute and possession of a firearm by convicted felon. The
   district court dismissed the § 2254 application as time barred.                          He
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20182       Document: 00516895252             Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                        No. 23-20182

   additionally seeks a COA to appeal the denials of his Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 59(e) motion as well as several other motions addressed below.
          Although he baldly asserts that the district court should have granted
   his motion for a continuance, Thompson does not substantively address, and
   has therefore abandoned any challenge to, the district court’s denial of that
   motion as moot. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993);
   Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   1987). Thompson’s challenge to the denial of bail during the application’s
   pendency in the district court is moot; we therefore DISMISS the appeal
   for lack of jurisdiction insofar as Thompson challenges the denial. Cf. Bailey
   v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1987).
          To obtain a COA with respect to the denial of a § 2254 application,1 a
   prisoner 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 (2000).
   When a district court has denied a request for habeas relief on procedural
   grounds, the prisoner 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, 529 U.S. at
   484. To obtain a COA regarding the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion, he must
   show that jurists of reason could debate whether the district court abused its
   discretion by denying relief. See Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th
   Cir. 2011). Thompson fails to make the necessary showings. Accordingly,

          _____________________
          1
             Although Thompson separately asserts that the district court erred by denying
   several other motions that he filed contemporaneously with his § 2254 application, those
   pleadings, in relevant part, merely expound upon the arguments and claims raised in his
   § 2254 application and therefore need not be separately addressed.

                                              2
Case: 23-20182      Document: 00516895252          Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                    No. 23-20182

   we DENY a COA insofar as Thompson challenges the dismissal of his
   § 2254 application and the denial of his motion under Rule 59(e).
          Finally, because the order denying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
   sanctions did not adjudicate the merits of his § 2254 application, Thompson
   does not require a COA to appeal the denial. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S.
   180, 183 (2009). We DENY as unnecessary the request for a COA with
   respect to the denial of this motion.
          Thompson’s contention that the district court did not sufficiently
   consider his Rule 11 arguments is conclusory, and he does not attempt to
   show that his motion for sanctions was substantively meritorious such that
   the district court abused its discretion by denying it. See Friends for Am. Free
   Enterprise Ass’n v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 284 F.3d 575, 577–78 (5th
   Cir.2002); Yohey, 985 F.2d 222. We therefore AFFIRM the denial of
   Thompson’s Rule 11 motion.

                                           3