1

Petitioner’s habeas application is deemed filed as of the date he placed his petition in the prison mail system. See Spotville

v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1998).

HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\MENDOZA.DSM-MANSUP:3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

RAUL MORENO MENDOZA, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:03-CV-0327

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT and

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Came this day for consideration the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

Custody filed by petitioner RAUL MORENO MENDOZA on September 1, 2003.1

 By his

application, petitioner challenges the result of a disciplinary proceeding which took place on April 30,

2003, pursuant to which he lost seven-hundred thirty (730) days previously accrued good time. 

On December 14, 2005, respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s habeas application

arguing such application is moot because petitioner has been released to mandatory supervision. The

only relief available to petitioner in this matter was the restoration of the good time credits forfeited by

the disciplinary action. As petitioner has been released and is no longer incarcerated, his request for a

return of good time credits is moot. Under Texas Government Code section 498.003(a), “[g]ood

conduct time applies only to eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision as provided by Section

 

 Case 2:03-cv-00327-J Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 39
HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\MENDOZA.DSM-MANSUP:3 2

508.145 or 508.147 and does not otherwise affect an inmate’s term.” Therefore, it is the opinion of

the undersigned that because of petitioner’s release on mandatory supervision, the issues raised in his

writ of habeas corpus are moot under the continuing controversy requirement and that such petition

should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States

District Judge that the Motion to Dismiss as Moot filed by respondent be GRANTED, and that the

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner RAUL

MORENO MENDOZA be DISMISSED as moot.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and

Recommendation to petitioner and to counsel of record for respondent by the most efficient means

available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED this 19th day of December 2005.

 _______________________________

 CLINTON E. AVERITTE

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the

event a party wishes to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is

eleven (11) days from the date of filing as indicated by the file mark on the first page of this

recommendation. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and the parties are allowed

 

 Case 2:03-cv-00327-J Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 40
HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\MENDOZA.DSM-MANSUP:3 3

a 3-day service by mail extension, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Therefore, any objections must be filed on or

before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b); R. 4(a)(1) of Miscellaneous Order No. 6, as authorized by Local Rule 3.1, Local

Rules of the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Texas. 

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the Report

and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States

District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to timely file

written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this

report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the

unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the

Magistrate Judge in this report and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services

Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988).

 

 Case 2:03-cv-00327-J Document 12 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 41