Rickey Gipson v. Keith Deville, Warden

Case: 17-30871 Document: 00514648973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-30871 September 19, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
RICKEY WAYNE GIPSON, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
KEITH DEVILLE, WARDEN, WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:11-CV-1954
Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Rickey Wayne Gipson, Louisiana prisoner # 325027, moves for a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his conviction
for attempted manslaughter. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884,
888 (5th Cir. 2007). We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte,
if necessary. United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Our
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-30871 Document: 00514648973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2018
No. 17-30871
jurisdiction is predicated upon the valid jurisdiction of the district court. See
id. The instant appeal is frivolous because Gipson’s Rule 60(b) motion, which
challenged the district court’s rejection on the merits of his ineffective
assistance claim and asserts that he was denied due process at his sentencing
proceedings, was a successive § 2254 application. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524, 530-33 (2005). Thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction to
consider the motion without authorization from this court, which was neither
sought nor given. See In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2013).
The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Gipson’s motion
for a COA is DENIED AS MOOT. Gipson’s motion to amend his COA brief is
DENIED. Likewise, his motions for leave to view sealed documents in the
district court and for production of those documents are DENIED.
2