Bignotte v. Chandler

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 31, 2002
Docket02-40138
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Bignotte v. Chandler, (5th Cir. 2002).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bignotte v. Chandler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bignotte-v-chandler-ca5-2002.