United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES B. GOODWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tucara Ann Taylor, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief as a
pretrial detainee. This matter was referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Following review of
Petitioner's pleading and publicly available records, the
undersigned recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed.
The Court's Screening Requirement
to the applicable Rules, the Court “must dismiss”
a habeas corpus petition if it “plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits” that “the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” R. 4, R.
Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Cts.; see
Id. R. 1(b); see also Boutwell v. Keating, 399
F.3d 1203, 1210 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005). In addition,
“[m]ootness is a fundamental bar to judicial review
that must be accounted for at all stages of a proceeding, and
applies in habeas as in any other type of litigation.”
Miller v. Glanz, 331 Fed.Appx. 608, 610 (10th Cir.
Petition, Petitioner alleges that she is a pretrial detainee
being held in Logan County, Oklahoma. See Pet. at 1.
Petitioner's challenge lies, however, to a pending
criminal action in Oklahoma County District Court, Case
Number CF-2017-2571. See Id. at 1, 2; see also
State v. Taylor, No. CF-2017-2571 (Okla. Cty. Dist. Ct.)
(docket and filings available through http://www.oscn.net).
Through this federal action, Petitioner seeks “to be
writted out to Oklahoma County to solidify a decision for a
plea, ” preferably “utiliz[ing] a program such as
mental health court.” Pet. at 2.
a § 2241 petition is a proper mechanism for a
state-court defendant to attack his or her pretrial
detention, Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235
(10th Cir. 2007), the undersigned takes judicial notice of
publicly available documents reflecting that Petitioner is no
longer a pretrial detainee in connection with Case Number
CF-2017-2571. Rather, the docket for that case shows that on
November 2, 2017, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty and was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment. See State v.
Taylor, No. CF-2017-2571 (Okla. Cty. Dist. Ct.) (docket
entry of Nov. 2, 2017).
habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a
case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the
Constitution.” Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690,
691 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. 1 (1998)).
As noted by the Supreme Court, Article III's
case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages
of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. . . .
The parties must continue to have a “personal stake in
the outcome” of the lawsuit. This means that,
throughout the litigation, the plaintiff must have suffered,
or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the
defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
Id. (omission in original) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). “[A]n issue becomes moot when
it becomes impossible for the court to grant any effectual
relief whatsoever on that issue to a prevailing party.”
Dumas v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 397 Fed.Appx. 492,
493 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
assuming this Court was authorized to require the Oklahoma
County District Court to “solidify” a plea in a
pending criminal matter, the docket for Petitioner's
criminal case reflects that just such a plea has been
entered. Thus, Petitioner is no longer a pretrial detainee
with respect to that matter, and it is impossible for the
Court “to grant any effectual relief whatsoever.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Petitioner's § 2241 claim “be[came] moot upon
the conviction of [Petitioner].” Miller, 331
Fed.Appx. at 610; accord Edwards v. Whetsel, 157
Fed.Appx. 65, 67 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that after a
state pretrial detainee was convicted his claims for release
from pretrial detention were moot).
upon the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be ...