Dorrough v. US Parole Commission, No. 06-40882 (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 April 3, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40882 Summary Calendar JERRY MACK DORROUGH, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, U.S. Department of Justice, Respondent-Appellee. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:06-CV-55 -------------------Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jerry Mack Dorrough, federal prisoner # 87089-131, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199- 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Dorrough was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 1963 for a guilty-plea conviction of robbing a postal employee, and he has had his parole revoked and has been returned to prison multiple times. * He filed this 28 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-40882 -2U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging both his latest parole revocation and the underlying conviction. The district court dismissed Dorrough s petition as barred by a preclusion order in Dorrough v. Ferguson, No. 6:01-CV-205 (E.D. Tex. May 30, 2001), which was entered based on Dorrough s having filed approximately 10 postconviction actions regarding both the conviction and parole matters. Dorrough does not address the district court s reasons for its certification decision and for the dismissal of his current § 2241 petition, i.e., that Dorrough s petition is barred by the preclusion order in Dorrough v. Ferguson. Instead, he continues to challenge on the merits his 1963 conviction and the latest parole revocation. This is the same as if Dorrough had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). It is ordered that Dorrough s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. See Dorrough was previously warned by this court that the filing of any further frivolous pleadings relating to his 1963 conviction could subject him to sanctions. See Dorrough v. Gaines, 48 F. App x 107, 107 (5th Cir. 2002). Because we have warned Dorrough previously and his current appeal is another frivolous attack on his 1963 conviction, see Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 808 No. 06-40882 -3(5th Cir. 1988) (courts of appeals have the ability to impose sanctions sua sponte), Dorrough is hereby ORDERED to pay $250.00 to the clerk of this court. Until the sanction is paid in full, the clerk of this court and the clerks of all courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Dorrough unfiled any submissions concerning the validity of his conviction, sentence, and parole revocation proceedings. Dorrough s Motion for Entry of Appropriate Orders, his request for leave to file a pleading for Interim Injunctive Relief, his Plea for Appointment of Counsel, Extension of Time to File His [Merits] Brief & Emergency Injunctive Relief, and Petition for Review of Appeal En Banc are denied. MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
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.
