Demond Fobbs v. C. Maiorana, Warden, No. 15-30733 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-30733 Document: 00513848949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-30733 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 25, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DEMOND JERED FOBBS, Petitioner–Appellant, versus C. MAIORANA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale, Respondent–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14-CV-1111 Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Demond Fobbs, federal prisoner # 11898-035, moves for leave to proceed 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-30733 Document: 00513848949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 No. 15-30733 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his sentence as a career offender for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal must demonstrate that he is a pauper and that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). In his motion, Fobbs challenges the district court’s dismissal, for want of jurisdiction, of his § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. As noted by the district court, Fobbs’s claims amount to a challenge to his sentence, and he has not met the burden of showing that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective as required by, e.g., Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court did not err in dismissing the § 2241 petition. See § 2255(e). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP and all outstanding motions are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); see also 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.