United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MARK A. NIXON Petitioner,
WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER, Respondents.
Barry Fischer, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241, ECF No. 3, be dismissed as moot.
Nixon (“Petitioner” or “Nixon”), was,
at the time of filing this case, a state pre-trial detainee,
who was incarcerated in the Allegheny County Jail
(“ACJ”), awaiting trial in two separate cases
pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
filed his Petition on May 17, 2019 alleging, inter
alia, denial of his right to a speedy trial and
ineffective assistance of counsel for “failing to raise
speedy trial bail and prompt trial rule and necessary motions
on my behalf.” The Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that according to the dockets of his criminal cases on
August 13, 2019, Petitioner entered a plea and was sentenced
that day to 1 year less 1 day to 2 years less 2 days, and was
sentenced to time served. Nixon was to be paroled within 48
hours of sentencing. Apparently, that occurred as the Records
Officer at ACJ has confirmed that Nixon was released from
custody. See also www.vinelink.com, which reflects
that Nixon is out of custody.
it has long been established that there is power in the
federal courts to consider on habeas corpus the merits of a
constitutional challenge to pre-trial detention, Ex parte
Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 253 (1886), considerations of
federalism counsel strongly against exercising the power
except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Braden v.
30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,
489-91 (1973). Moreover, after the petitioner is convicted,
the habeas petition challenging the pretrial custody is
rendered moot by the conviction. See, e.g., Clark v.
Payne, 341 Fed.Appx. 355, 356 (10th Cir. 2009)
(“He filed his petition in the district court while
awaiting his state-court trial; however, § 2241
petitions that challenge a defendant's pretrial custody
become moot upon the conviction of the petitioner.”);
Jones v. Mullen, No. CV 17-1366, 2017 WL 7691900, at
*1-2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2017), report and recommendation
adopted, No. CV 17-1366, 2018 WL 889027 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 14,
2018) (habeas petition seeking pretrial release from custody
was dismissed as moot in light of the fact that he was no
longer being incarcerated pre-trial, but has now been
convicted and sentenced).
because during the pendency of this Section 2241 habeas
Petition, which challenges Nixon's pre-trial custody, he
has been convicted and released based upon time served, the
Petition is now moot and should be dismissed as such.
extent one is needed, a Certificate of Appealability should
be denied as jurists of reason would not find the foregoing
reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that
the Petition be dismissed. To the extent one would be needed,
a Certificate of Appealability should be denied because
jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable.
party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and
Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d)
and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Petitioner, because his a
non-electronically registered party, may file written
objections to this Report and Recommendation by
October 15, 2019, and Respondents, because
they are electronically registered parties, may file written
objections by October 9, 2019. The parties
are cautioned that failure to file ...