P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20249 Su m m ar y Cal endar
CH RI STO FO RO S G PO LI TI S Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. M I CHA ELC HER T OF F , S EC RE T ARY , DE P AR T M ENT OFHOMELAND S E C U R IT Y ; S H A R O N H U D S O N , D i stri ct D i rectorf or th e 3 8 th D i stri ct; C H A R L E S A R E N D A L E , F i el d O f f i ce D i rect or; D AV ID L E O N G , D eportat i on O f f i cer D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 05- C V

- 3229

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * F orm e r im m i grati on detai n ee C h ri st of oros P ol i t i s, a na t ive of G reece, pro c ee di ng pro se and i n f or m a pauper i s, f

i l ed a B ive n s v . S ix Un k n o w n Agen ts of F ederal B u reau of Narcot i cs , 403 U
. S. 388 ( 1971) , c ivi ls ui tal l egi ng t hat
s e ve r al de fe nda nt s , i nc l udi ng M i c hae l Cher t o f f, t he Se c r e t ar y o f

H o m e l and United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20249

2 S e c u r i t y , h a du n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l yd e t a i n e dh i m f o ra n i n d e f

i n i t e p e r i o d o f

t i me a n dh a dre fu s e dto p r o v id e h im w ith a d e q u a te m e d ic a l ca r e d u r in gth is detenti on . Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed su m m ary j udgm en tt o t h e defen da n t s af t er c o nc l udi ng t hatitdi d no tha vepe r s o nalj ur i s di ct i on ov e rCher t o f f, t hatt he d efen d a n ts w ere en titl edto qu a l i fi edi m m u n i ty, an dtha t P olitis h a d fa i l edto
s t at e ac l ai m upo n whi c h r e l i e f c o ul d b e g r ant e d. P oliti s ar gu es th a t th e g ra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t w a s i n a p p rop ri a te b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e dinn o t lib e r a lly c o n s tr u in gh is p le a d in g s a n din f i n di n g t h at itdi d n ot h a v e p e rson alj u ri sdi ct i on over C h ert of f
. Polit i s al so cl ai m s t h at th e defen da n t s r et al i ated aga i n sthi m by f i l i n g cri m i n alcharges f or fa i l u r e to co o p e r a te inh is d e p o r ta tio n p r o c e e d in g s a n db ye x p e d itio u s ly dep ort i n g h i m to G reece; h ow ever these pa rt i cul ar is sues are i n dep en den tf rom an d not rel ated t o t h e cl ai m s t h at f orm t h e basi s of

t h i s Bi v e nssui tan d are n ot p r o p e r ly b e fo r e th is co u r t. S eeD o lli s v . R u b in , 77 F
. 3d777 , 779 & n. 2 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ); Qu eza d av . I

NS , 8 9 8 F .2d 4 7 4 , 4 7 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). Poli t i s w as d epor t e d whi l e t hi s c as e w as pe ndi ng. Ac c o r di ngly, t o t he
e x te n tt h a t h e s e e k s inju n c tiv e re lie f o rs p e c ific p e r fo r m a n c e to re m e d yh is
a lle g e dw r o n g fu l d e te n tio n , h is cla im s a r e m o o t. Se e He r m a n v . Ho l i day , 2 3 8 F .3d 6 6 0 , 6 6 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). P o litis fa ils to a d e q u a te ly b r ie f th o s e is s u e s th a t a r e p r o p e r lyb e fo r e th is
c o u r t, th u s , th e ya r e co n s id e r e da b a n d o n e d
. Hugh es v. Joh n son , 191 F. 3d 607, 6 1 3 (5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ). P o litis ’ s a p p e a l la c k s a n yis s u e o f a r g u a b le m e r it. S ee Ho w ar d v
. Ki ng , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 ( 5t h C i r . 1983)
. Th er ef or e, w e di sm i ss i tas fr iv o lo u s . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 4 2 .2
. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED
.