Wheeler v. MS State Parole Board ( 2021 )

Case: 21-60386 Document: 00516069862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 26, 2021
No. 21-60386
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Johnnie E. Wheeler,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Mississippi State Parole Board,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:20-CV-768
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Johnnie E. Wheeler, Mississippi prisoner # 32067, proceeding pro se,
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, asserting: his
parole-revocation proceedings violated his due-process rights; and
Mississippi authorities should release him. Continuing to proceed pro se, he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60386 Document: 00516069862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
No. 21-60386
appeals the dismissal of his petition, contending, inter alia: he acquired newly
discovered evidence supporting his challenges; the district court had
authority to grant mandamus relief under the Administrative Procedures
Act; and the court had jurisdiction to review his other constitutional
challenges.
A district court’s mandamus authority does not extend to directing
state officials in the performance of their duties and functions. See Moye v.
Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973)
(denying mandamus relief). Moreover, Wheeler failed to brief, and therefore
abandoned, any challenge to the court’s conclusion that his petition
constituted an unauthorized, successive habeas application over which it
lacked jurisdiction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993)
(noting briefing standard applies to, already liberally construed, pro se briefs).
(Even if he had briefed his challenge, it would be meritless. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3) (requiring applicant, inter alia, to “move in the appropriate
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider [second
or successive] application” before filing it).)
AFFIRMED.
2