Court Opinion

ID: 9402736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 18:00:44.150326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.234588
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-90016         Document: 00516789776             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                        No. 23-90016
                                                                                       FILED
                                      ____________                                 June 16, 2023

   In re Emanual Deleon Fields,                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
                                                                                  Petitioner.
                      ______________________________

       Motion for Permission to Proceed as a Sanctioned
                           Litigant
               ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Emanual Deleon Fields, Texas prisoner # 01127671, moves for
   permission to proceed after having been sanctioned in order to file a motion
   for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. His
   repeated, unsuccessful efforts to challenge his three aggravated robbery
   convictions and 60-year sentence have resulted in the imposition of a $100
   sanction by this court, which remains unpaid. He was also barred from filing
   in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction any pleadings that
   challenge his convictions or sentence until the sanction is paid in full, unless
   he first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file his pleadings. See
   In re Fields, No. 19-10584 (5th Cir. July 15, 2019) (unpublished order).
          In April 2023, Fields filed a motion for authorization to file a
   successive § 2254 application challenging his three aggravated robbery
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-90016      Document: 00516789776           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                     No. 23-90016

   convictions. He was advised that the motion could not proceed until he paid
   the previously imposed sanction and was directed to submit the payment or
   advise the court in writing whether he had paid the sanction. He then filed
   this motion to proceed as a sanctioned litigant, asserting that he is an indigent
   prisoner with insufficient funds to pay the $100 sanction. He requests
   permission to file the above-referenced motion for authorization to file a
   successive § 2254 application and argues that he has raised nonfrivolous
   issues in his motion for authorization.
          Fields must obtain this court’s authorization to file a successive
   § 2254 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). To obtain permission,
   he must make a prima facie showing that his proposed application relies on
   either (1) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
   collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” or
   (2) a factual predicate that “could not have been discovered previously
   through the exercise of due diligence” and additionally that “the facts
   underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole,
   would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
   constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty
   of the underlying offense.” § 2244(b)(2); see also § 2244(b)(3)(C).
          In his motion for authorization, Fields seeks to argue that he is actually
   innocent based on four allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. This
   court “does not recognize freestanding claims of actual innocence on federal
   habeas review.” In re Swearingen, 556 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2009).
   Further, Fields may not rely on an assertion of actual innocence to serve as a
   gateway to overcome the bar to successive filing. See Jackson v. Lumpkin, 25
   F.4th 339, 341-42 (5th Cir. 2022). He also had not made a prima facie
   showing that his claims of ineffective assistance are based on either a new rule
   of constitutional law or a new factual predicate that could not have been
   discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence as required for

                                              2
Case: 23-90016     Document: 00516789776          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/16/2023

                                   No. 23-90016

   authorization under § 2244(b)(2). Therefore, Fields has not shown that he
   has raised a nonfrivolous issue in his motion for authorization. See Gelabert
   v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Carr v. Capital One,
   N.A., 460 F. App’x 461, 467 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Accordingly, Fields’s motion for permission to proceed as a
   sanctioned litigant is DENIED. Fields is again CAUTIONED that the
   filing of frivolous or repetitive challenges to his aggravated robbery
   convictions and sentence in this court or any court subject to this court’s
   jurisdiction will subject him to additional and progressively more severe
   sanctions.

                                            3