1

This was petitioner’s prisoner identification number when he filed this action. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ESAU LAMPKIN, ID # 864512,1

 )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1629-R

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

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 Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

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

I. BACKGROUND

This is a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state inmate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

to challenge a denial of release on mandatory supervision. When petitioner filed the instant federal

petition on August 4, 2005, he was incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -

Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). Respondent is Douglas Dretke, Director of

TDCJ-CID.

In this action, petitioner contends that his constitutional rights have been violated because

he was denied release on mandatory supervision. (Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet.) at 7.)

Although petitioner filed the instant federal petition while incarcerated in TDCJ-CID, he

subsequently submitted a change of address which reflects that he has been released. (See Notice

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01629-R Document 5 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 24
2

of Change of Address.) 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”).

II. JURISDICTION

“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 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). 

In this instance, petitioner does not attack the validity of any conviction. He simply contends that he was denied release on mandatory supervision. Subsequent to the filing of his federal

petition on August 4, 2005, he was released from TDCJ-CID. He has thus obtained the relief

sought. Accordingly, his petition is moot and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this

action. III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the

Court DISMISS the request for habeas corpus relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01629-R Document 5 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 25
3

SIGNED this 25th day of August, 2005. 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve

written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made.

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after

being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds

of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01629-R Document 5 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 26