Coats v. Watson

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-40311
Summary Calendar

Garmon Coats,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Thomas Watson, Warden, United States Penitentiary
Beaumont,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:18-CV-141

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Garmon Coats, federal prisoner # 24754-077, was convicted in 1994
of one count of bank robbery, three counts of obstructing commerce by
robbery, and three counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-40311 Document: 00515613000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2020

No. 19-40311
2
violence. He appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, wherein
he argued that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) failed to credit his
sentence for the nearly 13 years he spent serving a state sentence. The district
court dismissed the petition as a successive filing because Coats had raised
the same claim in an earlier § 2241 petition. Alternatively, the court
dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies to the
extent that it raised any new arguments. Finally, the district court denied
Coats’s postjudgment motion to rescind, construed as filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Because Coats’s § 2241 petition raised the same legal claim that was
rejected in his prior § 2241 proceeding, see Coats v. Smith, 395 F. App’x 382,
383 (9th Cir. 2010), the district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing the petition as successive, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); United States
v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177–78 (5th Cir. 1994); see also James v. Cain, 56 F.3d
662, 665 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, Coats concedes that he failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies as to his arguments concerning how a five-year
state sentence he received for escape should have been treated in his federal
sentence computations. Because he has not demonstrated the futility of
administrative review, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing his § 2241 petition as to this claim for failure to exhaust. See Fuller
v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994).
Coats presents no argument concerning the denial of his
postjudgment motion. Accordingly, he has abandoned any claim stemming
from that ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. We CAUTION Coats that frivolous, repetitive, or abusive
filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal,
Case: 19-40311 Document: 00515613000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2020

No. 19-40311
3
monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this
court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
Case: 19-40311 Document: 00515613000 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/22/2020