Renteria-Piedrathita v. Thompson ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-7456
    RICARDO A. RENTERIA-PIEDRAHITA,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    W. J. THOMPSON, Warden, FCI Morgantown, WV;
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JANET RENO, Attor-
    ney General of the United States; U.S. IMMI-
    GRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-95-98)
    Submitted:   December 12, 1995            Decided:   January 5, 1996
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ricardo A. Renteria-Piedrathita, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ricardo A. Renteria-Piedrahita appeals from a district court
    order denying his petition for mandamus relief. We affirm.
    Renteria-Piedrahita petitioned the district court to grant him
    mandamus relief in the form of an order to the Attorney General to
    begin deportation proceedings as directed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (i)
    (1988). The district court found no private right of action and no
    standing to seek mandamus relief under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1361
     (1988). The
    district court was correct. Amendment to immigration laws in 1994
    forbids a construction of § 1252(i) that allows any private indi-
    vidual to force action to begin deportation proceedings. Immigra-
    tion and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub. L. No.
    103-416, § 225, 
    108 Stat. 4305
    ; see also Campos v. INS, 
    62 F.3d 311
    , 314 (9th Cir. 1995) (overruling prior Ninth Circuit cases);
    Hernandez-Avalos, 
    50 F.3d 842
    , 844 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
    
    64 U.S.L.W. 3241
     (U.S. 1995).
    Therefore, we affirm the district court order. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-7456

Filed Date: 1/5/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021