IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LEONARD MAURICE WRIGHT,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

MICHEAL MEYERS,

Respondent.

8:23CV171

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Leonard Maurice Wright’s Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Filing No. 1. On May 18, 

2023, the Court granted Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Clerk of 

Court sent a copy of the order to Petitioner’s last known address at the Douglas County 

Correctional Center (“DCCC”) in Omaha, Nebraska. Filing No. 7. The Court’s order 

was returned as undeliverable and indicated Petitioner was no longer in DCCC custody. 

Filing No. 8. However, a check of the DCCC’s online public inmate records shows that 

Petitioner is currently in the DCCC with an admission date of May 25, 2023.1 As 

Petitioner appears to be at the address the Court has on file,2the Court will proceed 

with an initial review of the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 1(b) of the 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts which allows 

the Court to apply Rule 4 of those rules to a section 2241 action. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. 

1 See https://corrections.dccorr.com/inmate-locator (search result for Leonard Wright) (last visited May 30, 

2023).

2 Petitioner has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address at all times. See NEGenR 

1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the Court of address changes 

within 30 days). 

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 1 of 7 - Page ID # 24
2

In his petition filed on May 1, 2023, Petitioner alleged he was a pretrial detainee 

confined in the DCCC pursuant to a misdemeanor charge in “CR23-5179.” Filing No. 1 

at 1. Petitioner alleged the following as his grounds in support of his claim that he was 

being held in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States: “false 

imprisonment, malicious arrest, lack of probable cause.” Id. at 5 (punctuation 

corrected). As relief, Petitioner seeks “tremble [sic] damage or punitive damages award 

or mandamus award.” Id. at 7 (punctuation omitted). 

Petitioner’s state court records, available to this Court online, reveal that, on May 

17, 2023, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of violation of a protection 

order and two additional counts of violation of a protection order were dismissed in 

Case No. CR23-5179 in the County Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. Petitioner was

sentenced that same day to time and costs served and was ordered to be released from 

the DCCC.3 Given that the Court’s order mailed to Petitioner on May 18, 2023, was 

returned to the Court as undeliverable because “inmate no longer here,” Filing No. 8 at 

2, it is clear Petitioner was released on May 17, 2023 pursuant to his plea and sentence 

for time and costs served.

As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,

“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the 

federal courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.” Haden v. 

Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir.2000); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 

1. “When, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a case 

‘lose their life because of the passage of time or a change in 

circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective relief,’ 

3 The Court takes judicial notice of the state county court records related to this case in State v. 

Wright, No. CR23-5179, County Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 

F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records); 

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (providing for judicial notice of adjudicative facts). Nebraska’s judicial 

records may be retrieved on-line through the JUSTICE site, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi. 

Relevant state court records are attached to this Memorandum and Order. 

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 2 of 7 - Page ID # 25
3

the case is considered moot.” Id. (quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch. 

Activities Ass’n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir.1994) (alteration in original)); 

see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 

(1998) (stating an action becomes moot where it “no longer present[s] a 

case or controversy under Article III”). If an issue is moot in the Article III 

sense, we have no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n. 7, 89 S.Ct. 

1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969).

Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723–24 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Because Petitioner has been convicted, his challenge to his pretrial detention is 

moot. See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Once Mr. Jackson 

was convicted, the claims concerning his pre-trial confinement became moot.”); 

Williams v. Slater, 317 Fed.Appx. 723, 724–25 (10th Cir. 2008); Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 228–29 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[C]laims for federal habeas relief for pretrial issues 

are mooted by Yohey’s subsequent conviction.”); Thorne v. Warden, Brooklyn House of 

Detention for Men, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 1973); Medina v. California, 429 F.2d 

1392, 1393 (9th Cir. 1970). Moreover, the case is moot because Petitioner was

released from the DCCC and is no longer in custody pursuant to the criminal action 

challenged in his petition. See McGill v. Mukasey, No. 8:08CV345, 2009 WL 277556, at 

*1 (D. Neb. Feb. 5, 2009) (finding habeas petition moot where petitioner was released 

from custody, there was no continuing injury traceable to the respondents, and court 

could not issue any decision which would further the relief sought by the petitioner). For 

the sake of completeness, the Court also notes that Petitioner’s requested relief of 

damages is not available in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973) (“If a state prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking 

something other than the fact or length of his confinement, and he is seeking something 

other than immediate or more speedy release—the traditional purpose of habeas 

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 3 of 7 - Page ID # 26
4

corpus. In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or 

available federal remedy.”).

Finally, because “the detention complained of arises from process issued by a 

state court,” Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); see also Hoffler v. Bezio, 726 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2013)

(collecting cases of courts that ruled a state prisoner who petitions for habeas relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must obtain a certificate of appealability). The standards for 

certificates (1) where the district court reaches the merits or (2) where the district court 

rules on procedural grounds are set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 

(2000). The Court has applied the appropriate standard and determined that Petitioner 

is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Filing 

No. 1, is dismissed without prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be 

issued. The Court will enter judgment by separate document.

Dated this 31st day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 4 of 7 - Page ID # 27
Last viewed on May 30, 2023

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 5 of 7 - Page ID # 28
Last viewed on May 30, 2023

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 6 of 7 - Page ID # 29
Image ID: D06259534C01

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA IN THE COUNTY COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA

ST V. LEONARD WRIGHT Printed on 5/17/2023 at 1:47

Room 01C28

Case ID: CR 23 5179 Page 1

Data No. 1034953

To: Douglas County Corrections

You are ordered to release the defendant LEONARD WRIGHT from imprisonment, if

detained in your custody for no charge(s) other than:

Ct Section Offense Description Cls Type

1 42-924 Violate protection order 1 MSD

The defendant furnished bond for appearance in District Court on appeal

Filing fees paid

The defendant was released on his/her own recognizance

The defendant received suspended execution of fines and/or costs

X The defendant received credit for time and costs served

Defendant is also released into the custody of Pre-Trial Release

The following charge(s) against defendant have been dismissed or found not guilty:

Ct Section Offense Description Cls Type

2 42-924 Violate protection order 1 MSD

3 42-924 Violate protection order 1 MSD

Date: May 17, 2023 BY THE COURT __________________________________

Last viewed on May 30, 2023

8:23-cv-00171-JFB-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 05/31/23 Page 7 of 7 - Page ID # 30