Court Opinion

ID: 9366039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 19:01:09.770475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.977796
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL LADRE DUNBAR,                           No. 22-55848

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00875-TWR-BGS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RAUL CAMPOS, Jr., Warden,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                   Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Michael Ladre Dunbar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

denying as moot his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial

detention under 28 U.S.C § 2241.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      1
            Dunbar’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. His motion
for appointment of counsel is denied.
We review de novo, see Zegarra-Gomez v. I.N.S., 314 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.

2003), and we affirm.

      In his § 2241 petition and on appeal, Dunbar contends that his pretrial

detention was unlawful. He further argues that the district court erred by waiting

to rule on his § 2241 petition until after he was convicted in his underlying

criminal case. We agree with the district court that Dunbar’s challenge to his

pretrial detention became moot upon his conviction. See Barker v. Estelle, 913

F.2d 1433, 1440 (9th Cir. 1990) (appellant’s conviction rendered moot his

challenge to a prior detention hearing). To the extent Dunbar seeks to raise other

challenges to his prosecution and conviction, such arguments are premature.

Dunbar is not precluded from raising these arguments on direct appeal from the

judgment entered in his criminal case.

      Dunbar’s motions for a stay of his criminal proceeding in the district court

and to lodge interview and body camera videos are denied.

      The motion to file without a certificate of service is granted and Dunbar is

informed that the court has considered each of his filings. Dunbar’s motion

requesting copies of filings is granted as to those filings he has not yet received.

The Clerk will send Dunbar a copy of the docket and copies of his filings at

Docket Entry No. 10 and 13.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-55848