Joseph Sam v. Jerry Goodwin, Warden, No. 15-30578 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-30578 Document: 00513567506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-30578 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 27, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOSEPH SAM, Petitioner-Appellant v. JERRY GOODWIN, WARDEN, DAVID WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CV-713 Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joseph Sam, Louisiana prisoner # 374631, was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. See Sam v. Louisiana, 409 F. App’x 758, 760 (5th Cir. 2011). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id. at 760. On April 23, 2015, Sam filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), challenging the district court’s denial of his prior attorney-prepared Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. He 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-30578 Document: 00513567506 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2016 No. 15-30578 argued that the attorney who presented his previous Rule 60(b) motion made fraudulent representations to the court. The district court denied Sam’s Rule 60(b) motion. Before he can appeal the denial of his motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sam must obtain a COA. See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court did not determine whether Sam was entitled to a COA. Because the district court has not issued a COA ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Rule 11(a), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 PROCEEDINGS; Cardenas v. Thaler, 651 F.3d 442, 444 & nn.1-2 (5th Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, we decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA ruling because the appeal is frivolous, and a remand would be futile. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Sam’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS MOOT. We denied Sam’s two prior Rule 60(b) motions for relief from judgment seeking to overturn the denial of his motion for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. See Sam v. Louisiana State, No. 1230834 (5th Cir. July 3, 2013); Sam v. Louisiana State, No. 14-30742 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2015). In our most recent order, we warned Sam “that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will invite sanctions.” The instant motion is frivolous and repetitive. Accordingly, Sam is ORDERED to pay a monetary sanction in the amount of $100.00, payable to the Clerk of this court. The Clerk is directed not to accept for filing from Sam any motion or any other pleading challenging his conviction and sentence, until this sanction is paid unless he first obtains the permission of this court or the forum court. We WARN Sam that future 2 Case: 15-30578 Document: 00513567506 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2016 No. 15-30578 frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive challenges to this conviction and sentence in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. 3

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.