Collins Nyabwa v. DHS Img Customs Field Off Dir ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 26, 2013
    No. 12-20739
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    COLLINS O. NYABWA,
    Plaintiff–Appellant,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
    ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,
    Defendant–Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:12-CV-2518
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Collins O. Nyabwa, immigration detainee # A087 029 259, filed a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     habeas corpus application challenging the legality of his immigration
    detention on the ground that his state convictions were based on violations of an
    unconstitutional state statute. The district court dismissed the petition as
    premature.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 12-20739
    This court reviews a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo.
    Kinder v. Purdy, 
    222 F.3d 209
    , 212 (5th Cir. 2000). Nyabwa is not required to
    obtain a certificate of appealability before proceeding on appeal. See Ojo v. INS,
    
    106 F.3d 680
    , 681 (5th Cir. 1997).
    When Nyabwa filed his § 2241 application, he was being detained
    pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1226
    (c), which mandates that the Attorney General take
    into custody aliens who are deportable for having committed certain crimes.
    Thus, Nyabwa’s § 2241 application challenged his preadjudication detention
    pending a removal hearing. Nyabwa has since been ordered removed and is now
    being held pending removal pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (a)(1)(A). Because
    Nyabwa is no longer subject to the detention he challenged in his application, his
    appeal of the district court’s dismissal is moot. See Oyelude v. Chertoff, 170 F.
    App’x 366, 367 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006).
    DISMISSED       AS   MOOT;      MOTION       FOR    APPOINTMENT          OF
    APPELLATE COUNSEL DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-20739

Filed Date: 7/29/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021