Melgoza v. Hardin ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10497 Document: 00516429436 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 11, 2022
No. 21-10497
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ramiro Ordaz Melgoza,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Michael Hardin, Warden,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:21-CV-6
Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges..
Per Curiam: *
Ramiro Ordaz Melgoza, federal prisoner # 21461-076, seeks leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his convictions. He also moves for
judicial notice, for an extension of time, and for leave to exceed the appellate
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10497 Document: 00516429436 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 21-10497
brief page limit. The district court denied Melgoza leave to appeal IFP and
certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Although Melgoza contends that the district court failed to consider
three exhibits that were not included in the district court record, the district
court ultimately included those exhibits in the record and reviewed them
when the court denied his motion to reconsider and determined that the
exhibits had no impact on its dismissal of Melgoza’s § 2241 petition.
Additionally, although Melgoza attempts to incorporate by reference the
arguments that he raised in his § 2241 petition, he may not do so. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Melgoza’s broad and vague
remaining arguments do not address any specific arguments considered and
rejected by the district court, nor do they otherwise address the basis for the
district court’s dismissal. Because Melgoza has failed to adequately brief any
of these issues, he has abandoned them. See id.In light of the foregoing, Melgoza has not demonstrated a nonfrivolous
issue for appeal with respect to the district court’s dismissal. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave
to appeal IFP is DENIED; all other outstanding motions are DENIED; and
the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
2