United States v. Jack Zimmerman, 690 F. App'x 215

Zimmerman, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty in 2010 to enticement of a minor and production of child pornography and was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment with lifetime supervised release.
He appealed; the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and allowed counsel to withdraw under Anders v. California.
Zimmerman filed a §2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court denied relief and the Fifth Circuit denied a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
He filed multiple Rule 60(b) motions; the district court characterized his second Rule 60(b) filing as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit.
Zimmerman pursued several appeals and post-judgment motions (including a Rule 59(e) motion and a mandamus application); the Fifth Circuit previously considered and affirmed the transfer order, and concluded Zimmerman had abandoned certain challenges.
The instant appeal duplicates the earlier appeal of the transfer order; the Fifth Circuit dismissed this appeal as frivolous and denied relief under the court’s inherent powers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instant appeal of the transfer order is duplicative/frivolous	Zimmerman contended his second Rule 60(b) motion was not duplicative and sought review of the transfer	Government argued Zimmerman already appealed the transfer and has no new grounds	Appeal dismissed as frivolous because Zimmerman already appealed the transfer order
Whether the district court correctly treated the second Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive §2255 motion and transferred it	Zimmerman argued the second motion did not duplicate the first and should not be treated as successive	District court/magistrate concluded the motion reiterated prior ineffective-assistance claims and properly characterized it as successive	Transfer affirmed previously; treatment as successive was proper (and appeal of transfer has been resolved)
Whether Zimmerman is entitled to relief based on lack of government opposition brief or under inherent powers	Zimmerman sought relief under inherent powers noting no government brief was filed	Government opposed; court noted inherent-powers relief must be indispensable to disposition	Motion under inherent powers denied because such relief was not indispensable to the case disposition

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Jackson v. Ward, 116 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 1997) (duplicative appeals can be dismissed as frivolous)
ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Barton, 569 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1978) (limitations on exercise of inherent powers)
Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that inherent-powers actions must be indispensable to case disposition)