Summary
holding that district court did not err in finding that petitioner's challenge to his continued post removal detention was premature where petitioner had not been in post removal order detention longer than the presumptively reasonable six-month period set forth in Zadvydas
Summary of this case from Lien v. SessionsOpinion
No. 11-50200
12-15-2011
CURTIS CHANCE, Petitioner-Appellant v. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; WARDEN GARY GOMEZ, South Texas Detention Complex; MICHAEL J. PITTS, Field Office Director for Detention and Removal; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Appellees
Summary Calendar
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:10-CV-596
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Curtis Chance, immigration detainee # A036 427 254, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The district court denied Chance's IFP motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status, Chance is challenging the district court's certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Chance had not been in post-removal-order detention longer than the presumptively reasonable six-month period set forth in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Consequently, the district court did not err in finding that his challenge to his continued post removal detention was premature. See id; Okpoju v. Ridge, 115 F. App'x 302, 302 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpublished). Nor did the district court err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Chance's challenge to the underlying order of removal. See Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733, 735-36 (5th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5).
Chance has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. Because his appeal is frivolous, see Howard, 707 F.2d at 219-20, his appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motions for stay of deportation and appointment of counsel are also denied.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.