Harris v. United States ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-30223
    Conference Calendar
    BURLIN J. HARRIS,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 01-CV-173-B-M2
    - - - - - - - - - -
    August 21, 2002
    Before   HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Burlin J. Harris, a federal prisoner (# 20735-095), seeks
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal from the
    district court’s order dismissing his postconviction motion,
    purportedly filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    To obtain leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Harris must
    demonstrate both financial eligibility and that he will present a
    nonfrivolous issue on appeal.    See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 02-30223
    -2-
    562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).   Harris has arguably demonstrated that
    he is financially eligible to proceed IFP, but he has failed to
    present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal.    The district court
    lacked jurisdiction to consider Harris’ postconviction motion
    under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because Harris is incarcerated in
    Tennessee.   See Lee v. Wetzel, 
    244 F.3d 370
    , 373-74 (5th Cir.
    2001).   Insofar as the motion should be construed as a 28 U.S.C.
    § 2255 motion to vacate, the motion is his third such motion, but
    Harris has not sought authorization from this court to file a
    successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.   See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255,
    2244(b); United States v. Rich, 
    141 F.3d 550
    , 551 (5th Cir.
    1998).
    Because Harris has failed to show that he will raise a
    nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal
    is DENIED.   See 
    Carson, 689 F.2d at 586
    .   Because the appeal is
    frivolous, it is DISMISSED.   See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-30223

Filed Date: 8/23/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021