Ronald Bingham v. Rick Thaler, Director

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [09-20794 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 11/29/2010; denying motion leave to file a supplemental document filed by Appellant Mr. Ronald Christopher Bingham [6519720-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ronald Christopher Bingham [6482501-2]; denying motion for certificate of appealability [6482477-2] [09-20794]

Ronald Bingham v. RicksThaler, Director Document: 00511287461 Ca e: 09-20794

Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-20794 S u m m a r y Calendar November 8, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R O N A L D CHRISTOPHER BINGHAM, P e titio n e r-A p p e lla n t v. R IC K THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, C O R R E C T I O N A L INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, R e s p o n d e n t -A p p e lle e

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 4:93-CV-2544

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges P E R CURIAM:* R o n a ld Christopher Bingham, Texas prisoner # 511223, was convicted of m u r d e r in 1989. His sentence, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, was

a s s e s s e d at 45 years in prison. In 1993, he unsuccessfully sought relief under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254, and in 1995, this court denied him a certificate of probable c a u s e (CPC). In 2007, more than a decade later, Bingham sought a certificate o f appealability (COA). The district court denied the COA, and we dismissed his

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-20794 Document: 00511287461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2010 No. 09-20794 a p p e a l for lack of jurisdiction. In 2008, Bingham filed another request for a COA in the district court, with the same result. He then filed a motion for relief p u r s u a n t to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and (d), Article III of the Constitution, and 28 U .S .C . § 2243 seeking relief from the prior judgments. The district court denied t h is relief, and Bingham appealed. Although Bingham argues he is not required to obtain a COA, he moves, in the alternative, for a COA in the event that one is necessary. We have twice rejected Bingham's attempts to obtain a COA because we la c k jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the denial of his § 2254 petition. We fin d no merit in Bingham's claims that he may obtain a COA long after the time fo r an appeal of the underlying judgment has passed. Nor do we agree with his o b je c t io n to our requirement that he must file a motion for a COA. Accordingly, t h e district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for relief. Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). We also reject B in g h a m 's arguments that he is entitled to equitable relief. His request for a C O A is denied because he has failed to show that reasonable jurists would d e b a t e the district court's earlier decisions. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2 0 0 0 ). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. B in g h a m requests the appointment of counsel, but he has failed to show t h a t the interest of justice warrant the appointment of counsel. Schwander v. B la c k b u r n , 750 F.2d 494, 501 (5th Cir. 1985). Therefore, we deny this motion. O u r denial of Bingham's motion for a COA terminates the need for a d d it io n a l briefing. Thus, Bingham's motion for leave to file supplemental b r ie fin g is denied. F in a lly , we caution Bingham that future repetitive and frivolous filings m a y result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary s a n c t io n s , and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any c o u r t subject to this court's jurisdiction.

2

Case: 09-20794 Document: 00511287461 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2010 No. 09-20794 C O A DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; M O TIO N TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED; JUDGMENT

A F F IR M E D ; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3