Bolanos Munos-Rodrigo v. USA, et al
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [13-50329 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 09/20/2013; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. Bolanos Munos-Rodrigo [7367460-2] [13-50329]
Case: 13-50329
Document: 00512325464
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/30/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-50329
Summary Calendar
July 30, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BOLANOS MUNOS-RODRIGO,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL; GEO GROUP; WARDEN, REEVES COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER III,
Respondents-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CV-114
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bolanos Munos-Rodrigo, federal prisoner # 29561-018, an illegal alien
against whom the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued
a detainer subjecting him to immediate removal from the United States upon
release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), moves to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 13-50329
Document: 00512325464
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/30/2013
No. 13-50329
challenging the BOP’s exclusion of him from rehabilitation programs and
halfway houses. His arguments are foreclosed by Gallegos-Hernandez v. United
States, 688 F.3d 190, 192–93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 561 (2012).
Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?