Benamon v. Cox

Case: 26-30040 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-30040 August 24, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jerome Rashad Benamon, Petitioner—Appellant, versus J. W. Cox, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Pollock; United States Marshal, Western District of Louisiana, Respondents—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:25-CV-1420 ______________________________ Before Graves, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Jerome Rashad Benamon, federal prisoner # 19802-043, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the without-prejudice dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. In order to be granted IFP status, in addition to demonstrating that he qualifies as a pauper, Benamon must show Case: 26-30040 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2026

No. 26-30040 that he will present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

Benamon faults the district court for failing to conduct a de novo review of the report issued by the magistrate judge. However, the district court acknowledged Benamon’s objection and indicated it had conducted a de novo review. “[I]n the absence of evidence to the contrary,” we assume that the district court did its statutory duty to conduct de novo review.

Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

As to Benamon’s argument that the district court misapplied the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), because the § 2241 petition challenged his federal conviction and sentence, the district court was required to construe it as a § 2255 motion or dismiss it. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). As only the sentencing court in the Southern District of Mississippi has jurisdiction to decide such a motion, see Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997), to avoid dismissal, Benamon had to satisfy the saving clause of § 2255(e) by showing that “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court,” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). Benamon has failed to raise a nonfrivolous argument that he made that showing. See id. at 480-82. Finally, as the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over Benamon’s petition, he cannot demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal as to the without-prejudice dismissal of his constitutional challenges to his convictions without addressing their merits. See Pack, 218 F.3d at 454-55.

As Benamon does not make the requisite showing that he will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, see Carson, 689 F.2d at 586, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.