Conrad v. United States ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-60476     Document: 00516383804         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/06/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 6, 2022
    No. 21-60476                           Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                              Clerk
    William Desmond Conrad,
    Petitioner—Appellant,
    versus
    United States of America,
    Respondent—Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:21-CV-57
    Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    William Desmond Conrad, federal prisoner # 39948-044, seeks leave
    to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition seeking a transfer to another prison. He also moves
    for the appointment of counsel. The district court denied Conrad leave to
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60476     Document: 00516383804           Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/06/2022
    No. 21-60476
    appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. See
    Baugh v. Taylor, 
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
    The district court considered and rejected the availability of Conrad’s
    requested relief both under § 2241 and through a civil rights action, and
    Conrad has not presented any nonfrivolous argument with respect to the
    district court’s reasons. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3621
    (b); Hernandez v. Garrison, 
    916 F.2d 291
    , 293 (5th Cir. 1990); Howard v. King, 
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir.
    1983). Accordingly, his motion for leave to appeal IFP is DENIED; the
    motion to appoint counsel is DENIED; and the appeal is DISMISSED AS
    FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh 
    117 F.3d at
    202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
    2