Neufville v. Ashcroft

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Neufville v. Ashcroft

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30469 Summary Calendar

JOSEPH KWEN NEUFVILLE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; DORIS MEISSNER; LYNNE UNDERDOWN; CHARLES T. COBB; IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondents-Appellees. ________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 00-CV-2800 ________________________________________ November 6, 2001

Before POLITZ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Joseph Kwen Neufville, a Liberian citizen detained by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service pending execution of his removal order, appeals the district

court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241

habeas corpus petition. Neufville’s habeas

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. petition challenged his removal order, requested a stay of his removal order, and asserted that his indefinite detention pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1231

(a)(6) was

unconstitutional.

Neufville has abandoned his challenge to, and his request for a stay of, his removal order by failing to argue, and in fact disclaiming, those issues in his initial

brief.1 To the extent that the district court’s judgment denied those claims, it is

AFFIRMED.

Because the district court’s rejection of Neufville’s constitutional challenge to

8 U.S.C. § 1231

(a)(6) was based on its application of this court’s now-vacated holding in Zadvydas v. Underdown,2 that the statute authorized the indefinite detention of aliens without offending the Constitution, that portion of the district

court’s judgment is VACATED.3 This case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

1 Cinel v. Connick,

15 F.3d 1338

(5th Cir. 1994). 2

185 F.3d 279

(5th Cir. 1999). 3 Zadvydas v. Davis,

121 S. Ct. 2491

(2001).

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished