SHAWN ALLICOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. INS, Respondent-Appellee., (2nd Cir. 2004)

Docket Number: 04-0054

Linked as:

Text

UN ITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS FO R TH E SECO N D CIRCU IT SUMMARY ORD ER TH IS SUMMARY O RD ER WILL N OT BE PUBLISH ED IN TH E FED ERAL REPORTER AN D MAY N OT BE CITED AS PRECED EN TIAL AUTH ORITY TO TH IS OR AN Y O TH ER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO TH E ATTEN TION OF TH IS OR AN Y O TH ER COURT IN A SUBSEQUEN T STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN AN Y CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUD ICATA.

At a stated term of the U nited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of N ew York, on the 30th day of August, two thousand and four.

PRESEN T:

JO SÃ‰ A. CABRAN ES CH ESTER J. ST RA UB RICHARD C. WESLEY Circuit Judges.

SH AWN ALLICO C K, Petitioner-Appellant, v. N o. 04-0054

IN S, Respondent-Appellee.

Shawn Anthony Allicock, pro se, Oakdale, LA.

APPEARIN G FOR APPELLAN T:

Varuni N elson, Assistant United States Attorney APPEARIN G FOR APPELLEE:

(Kristen Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel; Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of N ew York, on the brief), U nited States Attorney's O ffice for the Eastern District of N ew York, Brooklyn, N Y.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of N ew York (Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge).

UPON CON SID ERATION WH EREOF, IT IS H EREBY O RD ERED , AD JUD GED , AN D D ECREED the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED .

O n August 5, 2003, Shawn Allicock filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the District Court. In an order entered O ctober 30, 2003, the District Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, the District Court entered judgment against appellant on N ovember 4, 2003. Appellant argues before us, as he did before the District Court, that the removal proceedings brought against him in O akdale, Louisiana— which remained pending at the time he sought habeas relief in the District Court— unlawful.

are We have considered all of appellant's arguments. For substantially the reasons referenced by the District Court in its O ctober 30, 2003 order, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOR TH E CO URT, Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court By O liva M. George, Deputy Clerk