Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nohmaan Malik, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration and amended motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the Fifth Circuit.
Malik’s appellate arguments, however, concerned the district court’s denial of a different motion: his request to dismiss his criminal judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(1) and to return forfeited property under Rule 41(g). He also asked the court, alternatively, to treat his notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Malik failed to identify any error in the district court ruling actually before it—the denial of reconsideration and amended compassionate-release relief. Relying on Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, the court explained that failing to challenge the judgment on appeal is equivalent to not appealing it.
The court therefore denied Malik’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal as frivolous under Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2. It also denied his alternative request to construe the notice of appeal as a mandamus petition.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must address alleged errors in the particular district court ruling under review.
- Arguments directed only at a different ruling do not preserve a challenge to the appealed judgment.
- The court denied in forma pauperis status, dismissed the appeal as frivolous, and refused to treat the notice of appeal as a mandamus petition.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate arguments must correspond to the judgment or order identified in the appeal. A litigant who briefs unrelated rulings risks both denial of in forma pauperis status and dismissal of the appeal as frivolous.