IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-31191
USDC No. 98-CV-2653
ALLEN CROSBY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden,
Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CV-2653-F)
---------------------
April 22, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Allen Crosby, Louisiana prisoner #94047, seeks a certificate
of appealability (COA) to appeal from the dismissal of his habeas
corpus application for failure to obtain authorization from this
court to file a successive application. Crosby contends that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel; that the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) did not
apply to his application; that exhaustion of his claims in state
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-31191
- 2 -
court would be futile; that he could show cause for his failure
to raise his claims in state court and prejudice arising from
counsels’ errors; and that the ends of justice would be served by
consideration of his claims.
“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the
district court’s denial of a COA motion was based upon a
procedural ground, this court employs a two-step process. Murphy
v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997). First, this court
must decide if Crosby has made a credible showing of procedural
error. Second, this court must determine if Crosby’s underlying
claim that he was denied a constitutional right is debatable
among reasonable jurists. Id. Crosby has not made the necessary
showing to obtain a COA. Crosby did not obtain authorization
from this court to file a successive habeas corpus application,
as is required by statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Crosby’s
COA motion therefore is DENIED.
We warned Crosby after his most recent motion for
authorization to file a successive application that the filing of
repetitious or frivolous motions for authorization would invite
the imposition of sanctions. In re: Crosby, No. 98-00039, slip
op. at 2 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 1998)(unpublished order). Rather
than file another motion for authorization, Crosby filed a habeas
application in the district court raising claims he raised in his
previous motions for authorization. Crosby’s habeas application
was an abuse of the habeas corpus procedures set out in the
No. 98-31191
- 3 -
AEDPA. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Crosby is sanctioned $105,
thus doubling his cost of bringing this appeal. IT IS ALSO
ORDERED that Crosby remit payment to the Clerk of this Court.
The Clerk of this Court and the clerks of all federal district
courts within this Circuit are directed to refuse to file any
habeas corpus application, appeal or COA motion; any motion for
authorization to file a successive habeas corpus application; or
any civil complaint or appeal by Crosby unless Crosby submits
proof of satisfaction of this sanction.