Wickware v. Scott ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    __________________
    No. 95-20091
    Summary Calendar
    __________________
    CLEMMIE RAY WICKWARE,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    WAYNE SCOTT, Director,
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
    JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ---------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. CA-H-93-1186
    ----------------------
    (October 4, 1995)
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Clemmie Ray Wickware has filed a motion for leave to file an
    out-of-time brief in support of his motion for a certificate of
    probable cause (CPC).    The issuance of a CPC is required to take
    an appeal from a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding only
    "where the detention complained of arises out of process issued
    by a State court."   See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.     The issuance of a CPC
    *
    Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
    that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
    cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
    needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
    profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published.
    No. 95-20091
    -2-
    is not necessary to provide appellate jurisdiction because
    Wickware's complained of detention does not arise out of process
    issued by a State court.   
    Id. Thus, Wickware's
    motions for leave
    to file an out-of-time brief and for a CPC are DENIED as
    unnecessary.
    Wickware's petition must be construed as seeking relief
    under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he is contesting the manner in
    which his sentence is being executed by the Texas Parole Board.
    See Story v. Collins, 
    920 F.2d 1247
    , 1250 (5th Cir. 1991)
    (jurisdiction over state prisoner's good conduct claim is based
    on § 2241 rather than § 2254).   Wickware has not shown that he is
    entitled to § 2241 relief inasmuch as he has received the
    presentence credits to which he argues he is entitled.
    This court previously affirmed the dismissal of Wickware's
    suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials
    for an alleged conspiracy to miscalculate time served.     Wickware
    v. Stice, No. 94-40480 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 1994) (unpublished;
    copy attached).   The court noted that "the Texas Court of
    Criminal Appeals responded to Wickware's post-conviction writ of
    habeas corpus by granting relief and ordering the prison system
    to grant Wickware additional time credit."    
    Id. at op.
    p. 2.
    Given that Wickware has pursued his quest for presentence
    credits despite the relief he received from the Texas Court of
    Criminal Appeals and this court's recognition of the same, the
    instant petition is frivolous.   Wickware is hereby warned that
    the filing of frivolous appeals in the future will result in
    sanctions, monetary or otherwise.    See, e.g., Smith v. McCleod,
    No. 95-20091
    -3-
    
    946 F.2d 417
    , 418 (5th Cir. 1991); Jackson v. Carpenter, 
    921 F.2d 68
    , 69 (5th Cir. 1991).
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.