Politis v. Chertoff

Fifth Circuit

Politis v. Chertoff

326 F. App'x 272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 2009

Docket08-20249

StatusUnpublished

This text of 326 F. App'x 272 (Politis v. Chertoff) 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

Politis v. Chertoff, 326 F. App'x 272 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Former immigration detainee Christofo-ros Politis, a native of Greece, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), civil suit alleging that several defendants, including Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, had unconstitutionally detained him for an indefinite period of time and had refused to provide him with adequate medical care during this detention. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants after concluding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Chertoff, that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and that Politis had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Politis argues that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate because the district court erred in not liberally construing his pleadings and in finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Cher-toff. Politis also claims that the defendants retaliated against him by filing criminal charges for failure to cooperate in his deportation proceedings and by expeditiously deporting him to Greece; however these particular issues are independent from and not related to the claims that form the basis of this Bivens suit and are not properly before this court. See Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777, 779 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1995); Quezada v. INS, 898 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir.1990).

Politis was deported while this case was pending. Accordingly, to the extent that he seeks injunctive relief or specific performance to remedy his alleged wrongful detention, his claims are moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir.2001).

Politis fails to adequately brief those issues that are properly before this court, thus, they are considered abandoned. Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999). Politis’s appeal lacks any issue *274 of arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Therefore, we dismiss it as frivolous. See 5th CiR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Former immigration detainee Christofo-ros Politis, a native of Greece, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), civil suit alleging that several defendants, including Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, had unconstitutionally detained him for an indefinite period of time and had refused to provide him with adequate medical care during this detention. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants after concluding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Chertoff, that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and that Politis had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Politis argues that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate because the district court erred in not liberally construing his pleadings and in finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Cher-toff. Politis also claims that the defendants retaliated against him by filing criminal charges for failure to cooperate in his deportation proceedings and by expeditiously deporting him to Greece; however these particular issues are independent from and not related to the claims that form the basis of this Bivens suit and are not properly before this court. See Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777, 779 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1995); Quezada v. INS, 898 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir.1990).

Politis was deported while this case was pending. Accordingly, to the extent that he seeks injunctive relief or specific performance to remedy his alleged wrongful detention, his claims are moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir.2001).

Politis fails to adequately brief those issues that are properly before this court, thus, they are considered abandoned. Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999). Politis’s appeal lacks any issue *274 of arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Therefore, we dismiss it as frivolous. See 5th CiR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F. App'x 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/politis-v-chertoff-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack