United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C. GARGIULO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE COURT is the pro se Petition of Darien Rodriguez
Lobaina for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(ECF No. 1). Respondent Warden Larry Shults filed a Response
(ECF No. 11) and Memorandum (ECF No. 12), and Petitioner did
not file a reply. Petitioner did not respond to the
Court's Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 13), which ordered
him to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed
because it had been rendered moot by his release from
custody. Having considered the submissions of the parties,
the record, and relevant legal authority, the undersigned
recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be
DENIED because it is moot and because Petitioner has failed
to prosecute and obey orders of the Court.
time he filed the Petition on May 3, 2017, Lobaina was a
postconviction federal inmate housed at the Federal
Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi. In the
Petition, Lobaina sought immediate release from custody due
to an alleged miscalculation of his sentence. Warden Shults
filed a Response on July 27, 2017, asserting that
Lobaina's sentence was not miscalculated. Lobaina did not
file a reply.
to the Federal Bureau of Prison's web site, Lobaina was
released from federal custody on December 20,
2017. Lobaina has not filed a change of address
since that time, although he did file a change of address to
a free-world address in Miami, Florida, on July 5, 2017.
Court issued an Order to Show Cause on May 25, 2018,
requiring Lobaina to show cause why his Petition should not
be dismissed because it had been rendered moot due to his
release from custody. The Court further ordered Lobaina to
show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed because
he had failed to keep the Court apprised of his current
address. Lobaina was warned that if he failed to file a
timely response to the Order to Show Cause, the Petition
would be subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and under the Court's inherent
authority to dismiss the action sua sponte.
Order to Show Cause was mailed by certified mail to
Lobaina's last known address in Miami. The Order to Show
Cause was received at this address and signed for on May 29,
2018. (ECF No. 14). Despite almost four months having passed
since that time, Lobaina has not responded to the Order to
Petition is properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, “which applies to persons in custody regardless
of whether final judgment has been rendered and regardless of
the present status of the case pending against him.”
Dickerson v. State of La., 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 1987). The “purpose of the writ [filed pursuant to
§ 2241] is not to examine the validity of any judgment,
but merely to inquire into the legality of a
detention.” Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 222
(5th Cir. 1973) (citations omitted).
an action “is not moot simply because a § 2241
petitioner is no longer in custody, ” it is rendered
moot “when the court cannot grant the relief requested
by the moving party.” Salgado v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 220 Fed.Appx. 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing
Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.
1987) (finding §2241 petition moot where prisoner who
asked to be released from confinement was released from
confinement)); see United States ex rel. Lynn v.
Downer, 322 U.S. 756, 756 (1944) (finding petition for
writ of certiorari moot where petitioner was no longer in
respondent's custody); Salinas v. U.S. Marshals
Serv., 111 Fed.Appx. 782, 783 (5th Cir. 2004)
(“because [petitioner] has already been released from
federal custody, there is no relief this court can grant . .
has been released from custody and has apparently abandoned
this action. Lobaina's request that the Court order him
to be immediately released has been rendered moot. Moreover,
this case exemplifies the type of action that warrants
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the
Court's inherent authority for failure to prosecute.
See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30
(1962); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th
Cir. 1998). Lobaina did not respond to the Order to Show
Cause, despite being ordered to do so, and despite over four
months having passed. Lobaina has not filed a change of
address, filed a pleading, or otherwise corresponded with the
Court since his release from custody.
recommended that Lobaina's Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED because it is
moot and Lobaina has ...