Juan Zuniga-Hernandez v. Rachel Chapa, Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40065 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 06/05/2017 [16-40065]

Case: 16-40065

Document: 00513950414

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/12/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-40065
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 12, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JUAN JOSE ZUNIGA-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
RACHEL CHAPA, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CV-311
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner-Appellant Juan Jose Zuniga-Hernandez, federal prisoner #
23429-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. The district court’s dismissal of the petition was two-fold. The court
initially determined that the initial pleading was an unauthorized successive
§ 2255 motion because it failed to meet the requirements of the savings clause
of § 2255(e). See Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-40065

Document: 00513950414

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/12/2017

No. 16-40065
Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001)). Following
consideration of Zuniga-Hernandez’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the court determined that no relief was warranted
because the claims raised therein already had been rejected by this court.
A § 2241 petition that raises “the same legal issue” addressed and
resolved in a prior filing is considered to be abusive and should be dismissed.
United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Rich v.
Tamez, 489 F. App’x 754 (5th Cir. 2012). We review a district court’s decision
to dismiss a habeas petition as an abuse of the writ for an abuse of discretion.
James v. Cain, 56 F.3d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1995).
Zuniga-Hernandez’s argument that in light of Watson, he was convicted
of a nonexistent offense, was rejected by the district court and by this court. In
reaching this conclusion, this court impliedly considered and rejected the
argument that Zuniga-Hernandez now advances. See Zuniga-Hernandez, 548
F. App’x at 150-51. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing the § 2241 petition.

See Tubwell, 37 F.3d at 177-78.

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The

We CAUTION Zuniga-

Hernandez that frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings may invite
the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and
restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject
to this court’s jurisdiction.

2