USA v. Carol Morri


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-51143 Dismissed as Frivolous ] Judge: EBC , Judge: ECP , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 03/29/2017; granting motion to file corrected brief filed by Appellant Ms. Carol Johnene Morris [8355989-2]; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Ms. Carol Johnene Morris [8326564-2] [16-51143]

Download PDF
Case: 16-51143 Document: 00513903719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-51143 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 8, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carol Johnene Morris, former federal prisoner # 76547-080 and current Texas prisoner # 1681899, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her appeal from the district court’s order denying her request for issuance of a writ of coram nobis. The district court concluded that Morris failed to allege “sound reasons” to explain why she did not earlier seek appropriate relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and that she failed to exercise “reasonable diligence” in seeking prompt relief. Morris also moves to file a corrected brief. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-51143 Document: 00513903719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2017 No. 16-51143 The district court’s basis for denying relief remains unchallenged on appeal. In order to satisfy the requirements for filing a writ of coram nobis, the movant must present “sound reasons” for “failure to seek appropriate earlier relief.” United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because Morris has not briefed this issue, she has abandoned it. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Morris has not shown that her appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits, leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Her motion to file a corrected brief is GRANTED. The instant motion is Morris’s second attempt in recent years to appeal the denial of a petition for writ of coram nobis. The arguments raised in Morris’s brief and in the district court mirror those raised in Morris’s prior petition for writ of coram nobis. Because Morris has ignored this court’s prior warnings against frivolous or repetitive filings, she is ORDERED to pay a sanction of $100 to the clerk of this court. She is BARRED from filing any pleading challenging her 1997 conviction and sentence in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full unless she first obtains leave of the court in which she seeks to file her pleadings. Morris is further WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will subject her to additional and progressively more severe sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, or further restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to 2 Case: 16-51143 Document: 00513903719 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2017 No. 16-51143 this court’s jurisdiction. Morris is again CAUTIONED to review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive. 3

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?