Madrigal v. Davis

Filing 30

ORDER entered. The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the magistrate judge's M&Rs, 19 , 23 , DENIES AS MOOT Respondent's motion for summary judgment 18 , and DISMISSES AS MOOT this case. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JIMMY RAY MADRIGAL,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Petitioner,
VS.
LORIE DAVIS,
Respondent.

May 29, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-287

ORDER
On August 21, 2017, Petitioner Jimmy Ray Madrigal (“Madrigal”) filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. In sum,
Madrigal argues that two 1999 convictions for possession with intent to deliver a
marijuana were wrongly added to his criminal record.
On November 9, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that Madrigal’s petition is time-barred and unexhausted. Dkt. No. 18. On
December

12,

2017,

the

magistrate

judge

issued

a

Memorandum

and

Recommendation (“M&R”) recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion
and dismiss the case. Dkt. No. 19.
On December 22, 2018, Madrigal provided untimely evidence that the two
marijuana convictions were mistakenly added to his criminal record and that he
was not the defendant in those cases. Dkt. Nos. 20, 21. On January 30, 2018, he
magistrate judge issued a supplemental M&R, again recommending that the Court
grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the case. Dkt. No.
23.
On April 18, 2018, the Court granted Madrigal leave to submit his untimely
evidence and ordered Respondent to respond to Madrigal’s evidence and provide her
own evidence that Madrigal was the defendant in each defense listed in his criminal
history. Dkt. No. 28.

1/2

On May 7, 2018, Respondent filed its response to the court order. Dkt. No. 29.
In it, Respondent stated that “[a]fter additional investigation, the Director has
determined that the convictions in question . . . were incorrectly included in
Madrigal’s conviction history since May of 2016” and that “Madrigal’s TDCJ records
have since been corrected to exclude these two convictions.” Id. at 2. To her
response, Respondent attached an affidavit of Brittney Vest (“Vest”), Program
Supervisor III for the TDCJ Classification and Records Department. Dkt. No. 29-1.
Vest states that the two marijuana convictions were inadvertently added to
Madrigal’s criminal record on May 2, 2016, and have since been removed. Id. at 4.
The Court also takes judicial notice that the two convictions no longer appear in
Madrigal’s

criminal

history

on

the

TDCJ

online

offender

search.

See

https://offender.tdcj,texas.gov/OffenderSearch/index.jsp.
Respondent argues that Madrigal’s claim “is now moot since Madrigal’s
record has been corrected.” Dkt. No. 29.
The Court agrees. The government has granted Madrigal the relief he
seeks—removing the erroneous 1999 convictions from his criminal record. His claim
is therefore moot. See Brinsdon v. McAllen Indep. Sch. Dist., 863 F.3d 338, 345 (5th
Cir. 2017) (“A claim is moot when a case or controversy no longer exists between the
parties.”) (citing Bd. Of Sch. Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 129 (1975)).
Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the magistrate judge’s
M&Rs, Dkt. Nos. 19, 23, DENIES AS MOOT Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, Dkt. No. 18, and DISMISSES AS MOOT the above-captioned case.
Final judgment will be entered separately.
SIGNED this 29th day of May, 2018.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2