Christopher Emerson v. Rissie Owen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-51220 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 07/23/2012 [11-51220]

Case: 11-51220

Document: 00511907309

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/02/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 11-51220
Summary Calendar

July 2, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

CHRISTOPHER J. EMERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
RISSIE OWENS, Chairperson/Board of Pardons and Paroles (Texas),
Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CV-941

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher J. Emerson, Texas prisoner # 451863, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, his pro se petition for writ of
mandamus. In his petition, Emerson sought to compel the Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles (TBPP) to conduct a new revocation hearing in compliance
with the due process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471
(1972), and asserted that it is likely that his parole was revoked in retaliation
for his exercise of his First Amendment rights and not because he violated a law
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

Case: 11-51220

Document: 00511907309

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/02/2012

No. 11-51220
or a condition of release. Regardless of Emerson’s arguments, a federal district
court is not authorized to grant relief in the nature of mandamus relief to direct
state officials in the performance of their duties and functions. See Moye v.
Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973).
Emerson seeks through this appeal to continue to challenge the Southern
District’s denial of his § 2254 petition that challenged the same revocation
proceedings on the same grounds. For this reason and for the reasons stated
above, the appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Emerson is warned that the filing of further frivolous
pleadings or of any pleadings in this court or in any court in this jurisdiction
challenging the 2009 revocation proceedings may result in the imposition of
sanctions, which may include monetary penalties or restrictions on Emerson’s
ability to file further pleadings, or both.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2