Davis v. Waybourn

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER: Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Louis Anthony Davis. The Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed as moot. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 9/7/2021) (mmw)

Case 4:21-cv-00617-P Document 9 Filed 09/07/21

Page 1 of 3 PageID 45

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
LOUIS ANTHONY DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
BILL WAYBOURN, Sheriff,
Tarrant County, Texas,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-617-P

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
filed by Petitioner, Louis Anthony Davis, a state pretrial detainee confined in the Tarrant
County jail when the petition was filed, against Bill Waybourn, Sheriff of Tarrant County,
Texas, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court
has concluded that the petition should be dismissed as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2013 Petitioner was indicted in Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 1313350D, for
murder (Count One), possession of a firearm by a felon (Count Two), and tampering with
evidence (Count Three). Resp’t’s Resp., Ex. 1, ECF No. 8. On October 14, 2015, Petitioner
was found not guilty by reason of insanity on the murder charge, but the trial court took no
action and made no findings as to Counts Two and Three. Id. Exs. 2, 3. On July 30, 2021, the
trial court dismissed Counts Two and Three. Id. Ex. 4. Subsequently, on August 2, 2021,
Petitioner was released to Tarrant County MHMR for court-ordered outpatient treatment and
supervision on the murder charge. Id. Exs. 5, 6. Petitioner has not notified the Court of his

Case 4:21-cv-00617-P Document 9 Filed 09/07/21

Page 2 of 3 PageID 46

change of address and his current whereabouts are unknown.
In this petition, Petitioner challenges his pretrial confinement as to Counts Two and
Three in four grounds, alleging (1) collateral estoppel; (2) double jeopardy; (3) harassment
and bad faith prosecution; and (4) inordinate delay. Pet. 5–6, ECF No. 1. He seeks “discharge
from illegal restraints on [his] liberty.” Id. at 7. Respondent asserts that the petition has been
rendered moot by the trial court’s dismissal of the remaining charges and Petitioner’s release
from confinement. Resp’t’s Resp. 5, ECF No. 8.
II. DISCUSSION
A state pretrial detainee’s suit challenging his confinement is properly brought
pursuant to § 2241. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987). Although
an action “is not moot simply because a § 2241 petitioner is no longer in custody,” it is
rendered moot “when the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party.”
Salgado v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, 220 F. App’x 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Bailey v.
Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (finding § 2241 petition moot where prisoner
who asked to be released from confinement was released from confinement)). Because the
charges under Counts Two and Three have been dismissed and Petitioner has been released
from Respondent’s custody, the petition relating to his pretrial confinement has been
rendered moot. Article III of the United States Constitution requires the existence of a case
or controversy through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, including habeas-corpus
actions. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).

2

Case 4:21-cv-00617-P Document 9 Filed 09/07/21

Page 3 of 3 PageID 47

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED as moot. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 7th day of September, 2021.

3