Opinion
8:23CV171
05-31-2023
LEONARD MAURICE WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. MICHEAL MEYERS, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Leonard Maurice Wright's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Filing No. 1. On May 18, 2023, the Court granted Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Clerk of Court sent a copy of the order to Petitioner's last known address at the Douglas County Correctional Center (“DCCC”) in Omaha, Nebraska. Filing No. 7. The Court's order was returned as undeliverable and indicated Petitioner was no longer in DCCC custody. Filing No. 8. However, a check of the DCCC's online public inmate records shows that Petitioner is currently in the DCCC with an admission date of May 25, 2023. As Petitioner appears to be at the address the Court has on file, the Court will proceed with an initial review of the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts which allows the Court to apply Rule 4 of those rules to a section 2241 action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
See https://corrections.dccorr.com/inmate-locator (search result for Leonard Wright) (last visited May 30, 2023).
Petitioner has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address at all times. See NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the Court of address changes within 30 days).
In his petition filed on May 1, 2023, Petitioner alleged he was a pretrial detainee confined in the DCCC pursuant to a misdemeanor charge in “CR23-5179.” Filing No. 1 at 1. Petitioner alleged the following as his grounds in support of his claim that he was being held in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States: “false imprisonment, malicious arrest, lack of probable cause.” Id. at 5 (punctuation corrected). As relief, Petitioner seeks “tremble [sic] damage or punitive damages award or mandamus award.” Id. at 7 (punctuation omitted).
Petitioner's state court records, available to this Court online, reveal that, on May 17, 2023, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of violation of a protection order and two additional counts of violation of a protection order were dismissed in Case No. CR23-5179 in the County Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. Petitioner was sentenced that same day to time and costs served and was ordered to be released from the DCCC. Given that the Court's order mailed to Petitioner on May 18, 2023, was returned to the Court as undeliverable because “inmate no longer here,” Filing No. 8 at 2, it is clear Petitioner was released on May 17, 2023 pursuant to his plea and sentence for time and costs served.
The Court takes judicial notice of the state county court records related to this case in State v. Wright, No. CR23-5179, County Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records); Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (providing for judicial notice of adjudicative facts). Nebraska's judicial records may be retrieved on-line through the JUSTICE site, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi. Relevant state court records are attached to this Memorandum and Order.
As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,
“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.” Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir.2000); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “When, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a case ‘lose their life because of the passage of time or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective relief,'
the case is considered moot.” Id. (quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities Ass'n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir.1994) (alteration in original)); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (stating an action becomes moot where it “no longer present[s] a case or controversy under Article III”). If an issue is moot in the Article III sense, we have no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n. 7, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969).Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723-24 (8th Cir. 2005).
Because Petitioner has been convicted, his challenge to his pretrial detention is moot. See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Once Mr. Jackson was convicted, the claims concerning his pre-trial confinement became moot.”); Williams v. Slater, 317 Fed.Appx. 723, 724-25 (10th Cir. 2008); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228-29 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[C]laims for federal habeas relief for pretrial issues are mooted by Yohey's subsequent conviction.”); Thorne v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 1973); Medina v. California, 429 F.2d 1392, 1393 (9th Cir. 1970). Moreover, the case is moot because Petitioner was released from the DCCC and is no longer in custody pursuant to the criminal action challenged in his petition. See McGill v. Mukasey, No. 8:08CV345, 2009 WL 277556, at *1 (D. Neb. Feb. 5, 2009) (finding habeas petition moot where petitioner was released from custody, there was no continuing injury traceable to the respondents, and court could not issue any decision which would further the relief sought by the petitioner). For the sake of completeness, the Court also notes that Petitioner's requested relief of damages is not available in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973) (“If a state prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking something other than the fact or length of his confinement, and he is seeking something other than immediate or more speedy release-the traditional purpose of habeas corpus. In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy.”).
Finally, because “the detention complained of arises from process issued by a state court,” Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); see also Hoffler v. Bezio, 726 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2013) (collecting cases of courts that ruled a state prisoner who petitions for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must obtain a certificate of appealability). The standards for certificates (1) where the district court reaches the merits or (2) where the district court rules on procedural grounds are set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court has applied the appropriate standard and determined that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Filing No. 1, is dismissed without prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued. The Court will enter judgment by separate document.