McBarron v. Jeter, No. 06-10348 (5th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-10348 Summary Calendar THOMAS MCBARRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COLE JETER, Warden Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Defendant-Appellee. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-497 -------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Thomas McBarron filed an alleged 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition and raised claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The district court denied the petition after determining that McBarron could proceed under § 2241 and that McBarron s claims lacked merit. denial. McBarron appeals that He argues that his claims have merit and that the district court erred by not giving him sufficient opportunity to respond to Jeter s answer before denying his petition, by construing his postjudgment motion as a motion to reconsider, and * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-10348 -2by not ruling on his motion for appointment of expert witnesses. McBarron moves this court for a conference, appointed counsel, and an expedited appeal. He also requests that this court strike the appellee s brief. McBarron was not entitled to proceed under § 2241 because his claims would not entitle him to immediate release if he prevailed on them. (5th Cir. 1987). See Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1127-28 Consequently, McBarron s claims are not cognizable in a habeas action. See id. The district court s denial of relief is AFFIRMED on this alternate basis. v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1997). motions are DENIED. See Emery All outstanding

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.