IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ELIGAH DARNELL, JR., §

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § Civil Action No. 4:05-CV-0493-Y

§

DEE ANDERSON, Sheriff, §

Tarrant County, Texas, § 

Respondent. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND NOTICE AND ORDER

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Nature of the Case

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

B. Parties

Petitioner Eligah Darnell, Jr., TDCJ-ID #1326857, was a pretrial detainee confined in the

Tarrant County jail pending criminal charges in state court at the time this petition was filed.

Respondent Dee Anderson is the Sheriff of Tarrant County.

C. Factual Background

At the time this petition was filed, Darnell was charged with failing to comply with the state

sex offender registration requirements in Criminal District Court No. Two of Tarrant County, Texas.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00493-Y Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 119
1

The court notes that, on December 13, 2005, Darnell filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging his September 6, 2005 conviction and sentence. See Darnell v. Dretke, Civil Action No.

4:05-CV-0802-Y.

2

(Resp’t Appendix A.) On September 6, 2005, pursuant to his plea of guilty, the trial court found

Darnell guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement. (Id.)

On September 16, 2005, Darnell filed a state habeas application challenging his conviction and

sentence, which was denied without written order by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on

November 30, 2005.

D. Issues

In two grounds, Darnell raises the following issues relevant to his pretrial incarceration: (1)

the state prosecutor lacked jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against him, and (2) the state

prosecutor withheld material exculpatory evidence from the grand jury. (Federal Petition at 7.)

E. Legal Analysis

A state pretrial detainee is entitled to raise constitutional claims in a federal habeas

proceeding under § 2241 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Dickerson v.

Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987). However, Darnell is no longer a pretrial detainee

having been convicted of the charged offense, and the issues presented challenging the lawfulness

of his pretrial detention have been rendered moot. It is therefore unnecessary to resolve the issues

presented.1 See Thorne v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d

Cir. 1973) (“Since [petitioner] is now held as a convicted defendant rather than merely on a criminal

charge not yet brought to trial, the issue as to the legality of his continued pretrial detention has been

mooted, and it therefore becomes unnecessary to resolve the constitutional issues presented.”). See

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00493-Y Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 120
3

also Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that federal pretrial

detainee’s habeas corpus application was rendered moot by his conviction). This federal habeas

corpus proceeding is therefore moot.

II. RECOMMENDATION

Darnell’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot.

III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

 AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific

written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been

served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file

specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions,

and recommendation until January 13, 2006. The United States District Judge need only make a de

novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual

finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice,

from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the

United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th

Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh’g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).

IV. ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until January 13, 2006,

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00493-Y Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 121
4

to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the

opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing

date of the objections. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby

is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED December 23, 2005.

 /s/ Charles Bleil 

CHARLES BLEIL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00493-Y Document 25 Filed 12/23/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 122