IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BILL DERLETH, #32394-179, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-01681-L

 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

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 District Court in

implementation thereof, this 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 pro se habeas corpus action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241, et seq.

Parties: Petitioner is presently residing in Corpus Christi, Texas. The Respondent listed

on the petition is the United States of America. The court has not issued process in this case.

Statement of Case: Petitioner seeks to challenge a guilty plea conviction from the

Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division, for conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens. 

See Dereleth v. United States, 5:03cr01745-(06) (S.D. Tex., Laredo Div.). On June 4, 2004,

Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen months confinement and a three-year term of supervised

release. Id.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01681-L Document 2 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 109
2

Petitioner is no longer confined within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The Inmate Locator

page on the BOP Web Site reflects he was released from custody on July 29, 2005. See Federal

Bureau of Prisons – Inmate Locator, http:www.bop.gov. 

Findings and Conclusions: To entertain a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241, the

court must have jurisdiction over the prisoner or his custodian upon filing of the petition. Lee v.

Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373-74 and f.n. 3 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 77

(5th Cir. 1990); Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526, 527-28 (5th Cir. 1978) (citing Braden v.

30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)). 

Petitioner cannot establish this jurisdictional prerequisite. As previously noted, he is no

longer confined within the BOP and is presently residing in Corpus Christi, Texas. Therefore,

the court lacks jurisdiction to consider any request from Petitioner for habeas corpus relief

pursuant to § 2241. See Lee, 244 F.3d at 374-75, Blau, 566 F.2d at 527. 

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court dismiss the petition

for a writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. A copy of this recommendation will be

mailed to Petitioner.

Signed this 25th day of August, 2005.

 

WM. F. SANDERSON, JR. 

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.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01681-L Document 2 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 110
3

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 3:05-cv-01681-L Document 2 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 111