IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 DALLAS DIVISION

PABLO ROMERO, #682604, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:04-CV-0619-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondents. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and an order of the District Court in

implementation thereof, the subject cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate

Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state inmate pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Parties: Petitioner presently resides in Dallas, Texas. At the time of filing this action, he

was incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions

Division (TDCJ-CID). Respondent is the Director of TDCJ-CID.

Statement of Case: In this habeas corpus petition, filed on March 24, 2004, Petitioner

does not challenge his conviction. Rather he challenges Respondent’s refusal to utilize his

earned good-time credits to calculate the time remaining on his twelve-year sentence for

aggravated robbery from the 283rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas, in cause number F90-

55717-T. In sum, Petitioner requests early release from prison, although he is not eligible for

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00619-P Document 16 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 133
1 Petitioner’s release from confinement in May 2005 coincides with Respondent’s

assertion that Petitioner had a maximum expiration date of May 20, 2005. (Respondent’s

Answer at 2 and Exh. A).

2

mandatory supervision. 

Prior to filing this action, Petitioner submitted three time credit dispute forms to TDCJ,

which in turn responded there was no error in time-credit calculation. Thereafter, Petitioner filed

a state habeas application, which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied without written

order. 

In response to this court’s order to show cause, Respondent filed an answer, alleging

Petitioner’s claims were time barred and meritless. Petitioner filed a reply, rebutting

Respondent’s contentions. On May 31, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of address change,

informing the court that he had discharged his sentence.1

 

Findings and Conclusions: Petitioner's release requires the court to examine whether it

has jurisdiction over the instant action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (stating that "[w]henever it

appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject

matter, the court shall dismiss the action").

"Article III of the Constitution limits federal 'Judicial Power,' that is, federal-court

jurisdiction, to 'Cases' and 'Controversies.' " United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S.

388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the

parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v.

McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). When a petitioner does not attack the validity of his

conviction, but merely contests the imposition and duration of his confinement, the case becomes

moot when he is no longer confined. Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). "If a dispute

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00619-P Document 16 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 134
3

has been resolved or if it has evanesced because of changed circumstances, including the passage

of time, it is considered moot." American Med. Ass'n v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir.1988).

The only relief sought in this matter was early release from confinement. Since

Petitioner has fully discharged his sentence and has been released from custody, his grounds for

relief are moot and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims. Therefore, the habeas

corpus petition should be dismissed as moot.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction the same being moot. 

A copy of this recommendation shall be mailed to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

Signed November 21, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00619-P Document 16 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 135