IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 LUFKIN DIVISION

JU’WON BISHOP §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-138

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Ju’Won Bishop, a prisoner confined at the Telford Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of a prison disciplinary conviction in case number

20230050803. In his response to the petition, Respondent contends the petition is moot because the

disciplinary conviction has been expunged. Respondent submitted the affidavit of Terry Pickett, a

Program Supervisor employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). The affidavit 

states that the disciplinary conviction has been overturned and removed from Petitioner’s TDCJ

records. In addition, Petitioner’s good time credits and status have been restored.

The United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from issuing advisoryopinions. John

Doe #1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807, 814 (5th Cir. 2004). Article III of the Constitution requires that

federal courts hear only cases or controversies. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. A moot case does not

Case 9:23-cv-00138-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 12/11/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

50
present a case or controversy because there are no longer adverse parties with sufficient legal

interests to maintain the litigation. United States v. Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 354-55 (5th Cir.

2006). 

This petition is moot because Petitioner has received the relief he requested. The court is

justified in presuming that TDCJ is acting in good faith, and will not reinstate the disciplinary

conviction once the petition is dismissed as moot. See Sossamon v. Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th

Cir. 2009) (“Although . . . a defendant has a heavy burden to prove that the challenged conduct will

not recur once the suit is dismissed as moot, government actors in their sovereign capacity and in

the exercise of their official duties are accorded a presumption of good faith because they are public

servants, not self-interested private parties.”). Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed as

moot.

Recommendation

This petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed as moot.

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

2

Case 9:23-cv-00138-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 12/11/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

51
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

3

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 11th day of December, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00138-MAC-ZJH Document 10 Filed 12/11/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

52