United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20993
Conference Calendar
CLINTON W. DELESPINE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-2960
--------------------
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clinton W. Delespine, Texas prisoner # 187450, has filed a
motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application
challenging his 1963 conviction and sentence for murder as
successive.
To obtain a COA, Delespine must make a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
When the district court has denied relief on procedural grounds,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20993
-2-
the applicant must show “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Delespine does not challenge the district court’s dismissal
of his § 2254 application as successive and argues only the
merits of his habeas claims. Therefore, he has abandoned the
issue and has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would
debate the district court’s procedural ruling. See Hughes v.
Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999); Slack, 529 U.S. at
484. Accordingly, Delespine’s motion for a COA is DENIED.
Delespine’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal is also DENIED.
This is the seventh COA motion in which Delespine has failed
to challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing his
habeas application. Further, this court previously warned
Delespine that further frivolous applications would invite the
imposition of sanctions. See Delespine v. Cockrell, No. 01-20846
(5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2001) (unpublished). Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that Delespine pay a monetary sanction of $200 to the
Clerk of this Court. Delespine is BARRED from filing in this
court or in any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction any
pleading that challenges the aforementioned conviction and
sentence until the sanction is paid in full. Delespine is
No. 04-20993
-3-
CAUTIONED that any future frivolous or repetitive filing in this
court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will
subject him to additional sanctions. Delespine should review all
pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.
MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.