Sanchez v. US Immigration Department ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20530 Document: 00516738035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 4, 2023
No. 22-20530
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar 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 Clement, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez, Texas prisoner # 1745089, moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his motion filed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court determined
that Enriquez Sanchez had not shown his entitlement to relief under Rule
60(b) insofar as he failed to point to any new evidence or intervening change
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20530 Document: 00516738035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-20530
in law, failed to show any mistake, misconduct, or other reason that would
justify relief, and failed to dispute any particular finding or conclusion in the
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Enriquez Sanchez does not address the district court’s reasons for
denying his Rule 60(b) motion 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. Enriquez Sanchez’s motion for appointment of counsel
and motion for oral argument are also DENIED.
This is Enriquez Sanchez’s second appeal that this court has
dismissed as frivolous that entails challenges to his underlying conviction or
immigration proceedings. He is WARNED that future frivolous, repetitive,
or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may
include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file
pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See
Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
2