Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00109/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

 

 

 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

ZEBULON WHISLER,

Petitioner, 

v. 

SUPERINTENDENT HERNANDEZ, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

Before the Court are a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 (“Petition”) filed by Petitioner Zebulon Whisler, and a Motion to Dismiss the Petition 

(“Motion”) filed by Respondent Superintendent Hernandez.1 Respondent contends that relief 

is no longer available to Petitioner because Petitioner’s state criminal charges have resolved.2 

The Court agrees and therefore recommends that the Petition be DISMISSED as moot. 

In May 2024, when the Petition was filed, Petitioner was a pretrial detainee at Anchorage 

Correctional Complex West in the custody of the State of Alaska Department of Corrections.3 

At that time, Petitioner was facing several charges in a state criminal case, State of Alaska v. 

Zebulon Whisler, Case No. 3PA-09-00136CR. The Court takes judicial notice of the docket 

records in Petitioner’s state criminal case.

4

The Petition contains a single claim for the violation of Petitioner’s right to a speedy 

trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.5 Petitioner alleges that 

1

 Docket 1; Docket 13. 

2

 Docket 13 at 2. 

3

 Docket 1 at 1. 

4

 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s 

proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” BLACK’S LAW 

DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201; Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 

1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for 

judicial notice.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

5

 Docket 1 at 6–7. 

Case 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR Document 14 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R re § 2241 Petition & MTD Whisler v. Angol 

3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR 

2 

he was unlawfully held in pretrial detention for “six years without a trial date.”6 For relief, 

Petitioner seeks dismissal of his state charges and release from pretrial detention.7

On August 8, 2024, after entering into a plea agreement with the State of Alaska 

(“State”), Petitioner pleaded guilty to a single count of first-degree sexual assault.8 Pursuant to 

the plea agreement, the State dismissed Petitioner’s remaining charges, and the parties agreed 

to a sentence of 50 years with 27 years suspended (23 years to serve).9 Petitioner’s attorney 

observed that this sentence would result in Petitioner’s release from custody “right around 

sentencing.”10 On October 8, 2024, Petitioner was sentenced by the Alaska Superior Court 

and a criminal judgment was issued. 

Due to the resolution of Petitioner’s state criminal case, the Petition is now moot. A 

pretrial detainee may challenge their state custody in a habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241.11 However, a § 2241 petition alleging a speedy trial violation becomes moot 

when the petitioner is no longer in pretrial custody by virtue of having been convicted.12 Here, 

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree sexual assault following his guilty plea and has no more 

pending criminal charges. Therefore, even if Petitioner had sought appropriate relief for the 

alleged violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial,13 the Court would be unable to 

6

Id. at 6. 

7

Id. at 8. 

8

 Docket 13-3 at 1; Docket 13-4 at 1. 

9

 Docket 13-3 at 1; Docket 13-5. 

10 Docket 13-3 at 1. 

11 Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 885–88 (9th Cir. 2004). 

12 See U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395–96 (1980) (explaining that a case becomes moot 

“when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 

outcome”); Medina v. People of State of California, 429 F.2d 1392, 1393 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) 

(concluding that § 2241 petition alleging pretrial bail claim was mooted by petitioner’s subsequent 

conviction); see also United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. 381, 391–94 (2018) (holding that claims 

challenging use of physical restraints during pretrial proceedings were moot when petitioners were no 

longer in pretrial custody, with their criminal cases ending in guilty pleas). 

13 As Respondent points out, it is typically improper for a federal court to dismiss a petitioner’s state 

criminal charges or to order the petitioner’s immediate release. See Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 

(9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he rule of this circuit is that abstention principles generally require a federal district 

court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises a claim 

under the Speedy Trial Clause as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.”).

Case 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR Document 14 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R re § 2241 Petition & MTD Whisler v. Angol 

3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR 

3 

grant that relief now that Petitioner is no longer awaiting trial.14

Thus, the Court recommends that the Motion to Dismiss at Docket 13 be GRANTED. 

Accordingly, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 at Docket 1 

should be DISMISSED as moot. A certificate of appealability should not issue.15

DATED this 11th day of December, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

s/ Kyle F. Reardon

KYLE F. REARDON 

United States Magistrate Judge 

District of Alaska 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may designate a magistrate judge to hear 

and determine matters pending before the Court. For dispositive matters, a magistrate judge 

reports findings of fact and provides recommendations to the presiding district court judge.16 

A district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s 

order.17 

A party may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s order within 14 fourteen 

days.18 Objections and responses are limited to five (5) pages in length and should not merely 

14 Because the Court finds that the Petition should be dismissed on the ground of mootness, the 

Court need not address Respondent’s alternative arguments for dismissal. 

15 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 825 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] state 

prisoner who is proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a [Certificate of Appealability] under § 

2253(c)(1)(A) in order to challenge process issued by a state court.”); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000) (holding that a certificate of appealability may be granted only if the applicant made 

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., showing that “reasonable jurists could 

debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further”) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted)). Petitioner may request a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals. 

16 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

17 Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

18 Id. 

Case 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR Document 14 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

R&R re § 2241 Petition & MTD Whisler v. Angol 

3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR 

4 

reargue positions previously presented. Rather, objections and responses should specifically 

identify the findings or recommendations objected to, the basis of the objection, and any legal 

authority in support. Reports and recommendations are not appealable orders. Any notice of 

appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court’s 

judgment.19 

19 See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 3:24-cv-00109-SLG-KFR Document 14 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 4