Sanchez v. US Immigration Dept ( 2022 )

Case: 22-20078 Document: 00516424879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 9, 2022
No. 22-20078
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
United States Immigration Department,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-2537
Before Haynes, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez, Texas prisoner # 1745089, moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the dismissal of his petition
construed by the district court as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district
court determined that Enriquez Sanchez raised claims challenging his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-20078 Document: 00516424879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2022
No. 22-20078
removal proceedings and immigration detainer and dismissed his petition for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Enriquez Sanchez does not address the district court’s reasons for
dismissing the petition and certifying that his appeal was not taken in good
faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The failure by Enriquez Sanchez to
address the district court’s basis for dismissing his petition “without even
the slightest identification of any error in [the district court’s] legal analysis
or its application to [his] suit . . ., is the same as if he had not appealed that
judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is
frivolous, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);
5th Cir. R. 42.2.
To the extent Enriquez Sanchez’s motion contesting his immigration
proceedings and criminal conviction can be construed as seeking mandamus
relief, he fails to demonstrate that he has no other adequate means to obtain
the requested relief and that he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the
writ. In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). He likewise fails to demonstrate that the interests of
justice require appointment of counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff Lubbock Cnty.,
Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). As such, his motions are
DENIED.
2