Haskett v. State of Mississippi ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60806
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL E. HASKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:94MC66-D
- - - - - - - - - -
February 20, 1998
Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael E. Haskett, Texas prisoner #524781, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the denial of
his motion for production of a grand-jury transcript and denial
of his motion for reconsideration of his motion. Haskett also
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Haskett did not challenge the fact or duration of his
confinement in his transcript motion. His motion was not a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-60806
-2-
petition for habeas corpus relief. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 500 (1973). No COA is needed for Haskett to proceed on
appeal. Haskett’s COA motion is DENIED as unnecessary. Because
the district court granted Haskett leave to proceed IFP on
appeal, he need not obtain our permission to so proceed. FED. R.
APP. P. 24(a). Haskett’s IFP motion is DENIED as unnecessary.
No further briefing is necessary to determine Haskett’s
appeal; we therefore proceed to determine the appeal. See
Dickinson v. Wainwright, 626 F.2d 1184, 1186 (5th Cir. 1980).
Haskett’s transcript motion was a civil action independent of any
other case. We need not determine whether we have jurisdiction
over such an appeal because Haskett’s appeal may be determined
easily on the merits. United States v. Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65,
66 (5th Cir. 1992).
Haskett’s notice of appeal was untimely to raise the denial
of his transcript motion for appeal, FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1); the
notice of appeal was timely to raise the denial of Haskett’s
motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). The denial of the Rule
60(b) motion was not an abuse of discretion. Matter of Ta Chi
Navigation Corp., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984). Haskett has
not indicated that the transcript he seeks is necessary to
prevent injustice in another proceeding. United States v.
Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
Haskett’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution
No. 96-60806
-3-
Haskett that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will
invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Haskett
is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that
they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have
been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED, 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.