Opinion ID: 599034
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Roldan's State Custody.

Text: 16 The magistrate judge's report-recommendation regarded Roldan as effectively seeking relief only against the INS even though he is not in INS custody. The magistrate judge was certainly justified in that view. 17 Roldan's petition challenge[d] proceedings of the INS, Buffalo office, with respect to a deportation hearing, and further contended that his state confinement was illegal in that it was predicated upon the miscarriage of justice and the violation of my rights that occurred at the 1988 INS proceedings against me. There was no claim that there was any infirmity in the state proceedings that led to Roldan's initial conviction for assault. 18 Further, we cannot conclude that his subsequent imprisonment as a parole violator by New York State constituted custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) and 2254(a) simply because the INS allegedly failed to advise him at his 1988 deportation proceeding that illegal reentry would constitute a violation of his state parole. In any event, Roldan could hardly contend that his DWI conviction, an additional basis for his parole revocation, was attributable to the 1988 deportation proceeding. 19 We conclude that Roldan presented no significant challenge to his state custody. Considerations of mootness regarding this issue accordingly need not be addressed. 20