Nathan Cook v. Michael Pearce, Warden

Fifth Circuit

Nathan Cook v. Michael Pearce, Warden

639 F. App'x 283

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 2016

Docket15-50592

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 639 F. App'x 283 (Nathan Cook v. Michael Pearce, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nathan Cook v. Michael Pearce, Warden, 639 F. App'x 283 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Nathan Lee Cook, federal prisoner # 11280-078, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for abuse of the writ. He is serving a sentence for federal drug and firearm offenses. Cook’s petition alleged that he is being unlawfully detained because he has not been given credit for time served while he was in state custody. Also, he moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP),

Because Cook’s § 2241 petition raised legal claims that were rejected in a prior § 2241 proceeding, see Cook v. Meeks, Civ. No. 12-179, 2014 WL 2154897 (W.D.Penn. May 22, 2014), the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the new § 2241 petition for abuse of the writ. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994). We DISMISS Cook’s appeal as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and DENY his IFP motion.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Nathan Lee Cook, federal prisoner # 11280-078, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for abuse of the writ. He is serving a sentence for federal drug and firearm offenses. Cook’s petition alleged that he is being unlawfully detained because he has not been given credit for time served while he was in state custody. Also, he moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP),

Because Cook’s § 2241 petition raised legal claims that were rejected in a prior § 2241 proceeding, see Cook v. Meeks, Civ. No. 12-179, 2014 WL 2154897 (W.D.Penn. May 22, 2014), the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the new § 2241 petition for abuse of the writ. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994). We DISMISS Cook’s appeal as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and DENY his IFP motion.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 F. App'x 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathan-cook-v-michael-pearce-warden-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack