USA v. Thaddeus Richardson
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-31257 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JES , Judge: JLW , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 11/30/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Thaddeus Richardson [8433467-2]; denying motion for certificate of appealability filed by Appellant Mr. Thaddeus Richardson [8433464-2] [16-31257]
Date Filed: 10/09/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
October 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Thaddeus Richardson, federal prisoner #32639-034, was convicted of
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 10/09/2017
possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the
denial of a postjudgment motion for reconsideration of the denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He request in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on
The postjudgment motion is construed as a motion made under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals,
Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667−68 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc); FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). In
his motion, Richardson, in an attempt to reopen the time limit for seeking relief
from this court, sought to have the district court reinstate its order of dismissal
of his § 2255 motion. Because the motion merely sought to reinstate appellate
jurisdiction, and did not constitute an attack on the district court’s resolution
of his claims on the merits or add a new ground for relief, a COA is unnecessary. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532−33 (2005); Dunn v.
Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 491−92 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).
Richardson’s case is therefore before this court on his motion to appeal
IFP, and this court’s inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal
points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). The district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying Richardson’s motion. See Perez v. Stephens,
745 F.3d 174, 177−79 (5th Cir. 2014); Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428
(5th Cir. 2011); Dunn, 302 F.3d at 492−93.
This appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED. See Howard,
707 F.2d at 220; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The motion for a COA is DENIED as
unnecessary. The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?