Bignotte v. Chandler
This text of Bignotte v. Chandler (Bignotte v. Chandler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40138 Summary Calendar
MIGUEL LOPEZ BIGNOTTE
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
ERNEST CHANDLER, Warden; JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondents - Appellees
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CV-869 -------------------- July 30, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Miguel Lopez Bignotte, immigration detainee
# 02748-000, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Bignotte, a Cuban national, arrived in the United States
in 1980 with the Mariel boatlift. Bignotte, together with the
other Mariel Cubans, was determined by the Immigration and
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-40138 -2-
Naturalization Service (“INS”) to be excludable and was placed on
immigration parole. He has been detained in federal custody
since 1987 following a state controlled-substance conviction. He
concedes that he has received regular parole review but has been
denied release on account of his criminal history and
disciplinary record. Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001), Bignotte contends that his continued detention violates
his constitutional rights.
The district court did not err in determining that Bignotte
is not entitled to relief. See Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 988
F.2d 1437, 1439 (5th Cir. 1993), amended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty.
Gen., 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1993). Although Zadvydas held that
a deportable alien may contest his continued detention in a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 proceeding, the Court distinguished the status of
deportable aliens from that of excludable aliens like Bignotte.
See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682, 692-94. Bignotte’s petition is
governed by Gisbert.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bignotte v. Chandler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bignotte-v-chandler-ca5-2002.