Gresham v. Miles , 82 F. App'x 396 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41094
Conference Calendar
ROGER EUGENE GRESHAM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
R.D. MILES, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CV-419
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roger Eugene Gresham, federal prisoner # 29072-077, appeals
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he
asserted that his indictment was invalid under Jones v. United
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000). The district court dismissed
the petition because Gresham had not shown that relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective so as to warrant
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41094
-2-
Gresham does not specifically challenge the district court’s
determination. Instead, he conclusionally asserts that he should
be permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he has
been denied leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
His argument is without merit: “a prior unsuccessful § 2255
motion, or the inability to meet AEDPA’s ‘second or successive’
requirement, does not make [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 inadequate or
ineffective.” Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir.
2000). The appeal is wholly without merit and is therefore
DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Gresham has filed four prior unsuccessful motions for
leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and he
has filed one prior unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,
asserting essentially the same grounds as he raises in the
instant petition. He has been previously warned and sanctioned
for repetitively filing frivolous pleadings. Because Gresham
continues to file repetitive pleadings asserting grounds for
relief identical to those previously held to be without merit, he
is ORDERED to pay $150 in sanctions to the clerk of this court.
The clerk is DIRECTED to not accept for filing any pleadings from
Gresham until the sanction is paid in full. Gresham is further
CAUTIONED that any future frivolous filing in this court or any
court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to
additional sanctions.
No. 03-41094
-3-
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED; ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS
WARNING ISSUED.