Court Opinion

ID: 9377521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 01:00:39.178928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.754905
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11214         Document: 00516668417             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-11214
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                 March 7, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Marshall Dewayne Williams,                                                         Clerk

                                                                   Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Warden of USP, Coleman FCI,

                                                Respondent—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-1729
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Marshall Dewayne Williams, federal prisoner #14130-077, seeks leave
   to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his 28
   U.S.C. § 2241 petition and the denial of his related motion under Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Williams contends the Bureau of Prisons has
   not properly calculated his release date and that he is being unlawfully
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-11214      Document: 00516668417           Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/07/2023

                                     No. 21-11214

   detained. To succeed on his IFP motion, he must demonstrate both financial
   eligibility and the existence of a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See 28 U.S.C.
   § 1915(a), (e)(2); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Because
   his application reflects savings of $1,557.12 and no debts, monthly expenses,
   or dependents, Williams is not financially eligible to proceed IFP. See Adkins
   v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
          Regardless of his ability to pay the fee, however, the appeal is
   meritless. The district court correctly dismissed Williams’s § 2241 petition
   for lack of jurisdiction because he is incarcerated in the Middle District of
   Florida, see Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2001), and his appellate
   brief does not address that dispositive ruling. Indeed, we have previously
   advised Williams on more than one occasion that he must pursue relief in the
   district of incarceration, as it is the only court with jurisdiction to grant it.
   Williams v. United States, No. 20-10422, 2021 WL 5871878, 1 (5th Cir. Dec.
   10, 2021); In re Williams, No. 22-20400 (5th Cir. Dec. 22, 2022)
   (unpublished order denying mandamus petition). Williams in fact has a
   § 2241 petition pending in that district, raising the same challenge to his
   detention that he seeks to raise here. His appeal thus lacks “legal points
   arguable on their merits” and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
   (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly,
   IT IS ORDERED that the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is
   DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201–02 & n.24 (5th Cir.
   1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          Williams has ignored this court’s prior rulings regarding jurisdiction
   and our warning against frivolous, abusive, or repetitive filings, by pursuing
   his claims in this appeal and in his recent mandamus petition. He is,
   therefore, ORDERED to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of this court
   and is BARRED from filing in this court or any court subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction any challenge to his 1984 federal convictions or sentences until

                                          2
Case: 21-11214     Document: 00516668417          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/07/2023

                                   No. 21-11214

   the sanction is paid in full or unless he obtains permission from the forum
   court. Williams is further WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or
   otherwise abusive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction will subject him to additional and progressively more severe
   sanctions.

                                        3