“[Section] 2241 petitions that challenge a defendant’s pretrial custody become moot upon the conviction of the petitioner.”
How later courts described this case
- “[Section] 2241 petitions that challenge a defendant’s pretrial custody become moot upon the conviction of the petitioner.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
CHARLES A. LAWSON, :
:
Petitioner, : Civ. No. 22-1324 (NLH)
:
v. : OPINION
:
WARDEN EUGENE CALDWELL, :
:
Respondent. :
______________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Charles A. Lawson
357387/367566
Hudson County Jail
30-35 Hackensack Ave
Kearny, NJ 07032
Petitioner pro se
James R. Birchmeier, Esq.
Birchmeier & Powell LLC
1891 State Highway 50
PO Box 582
Tuckahoe, NJ 08250-0582
Attorneys for Respondent
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Charles A. Lawson filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his pretrial
detention in the Cumberland County Jail and state court criminal
proceedings. ECF No. 1. Respondent opposed the petition. ECF
No. 7.
On January 16, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to
submit a status report regarding Petitioner’s criminal charges.
ECF No. 27. Petitioner filed a response on January 19, 2024
stating that he had accepted a plea deal to Indictment 19-
000952. ECF No. 28. He continued to assert that his attorney
rendered ineffective assistance and that he had been subject to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Cumberland
County Jail. Id. at 2-3. Petitioner later submitted a “motion
for remedy” asking the Court to reduce his sentence. ECF No.
29. See also ECF No. 31 (letter requesting sentence reduction).
Respondent submitted a response on February 6, 2024 confirming
that Petitioner had accepted a plea deal for Indictment 19-
000952. ECF No. 30. Respondent included Petitioner’s judgment
of conviction dated January 22, 2024. Id. at 5. According to
the judgment of conviction, Petitioner was sentenced to six
years of imprisonment with credit for time served. Id.
District courts have jurisdiction under § 2241 to issue a
writ of habeas corpus before a criminal judgment is entered
against an individual in state court. Moore v. De Young, 515
F.2d 437, 441-42 (3d Cir. 1975). This includes claims that
pretrial conditions of confinement violate the Constitution.
See Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310 (3d Cir.
2020). However, Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced
since he filed this petition.
Petitioner’s conviction and sentence moots his challenge to
his pretrial detention. See Clark v. Payne, 341 F. App’x 355,
356 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[Section] 2241 petitions that challenge a
defendant’s pretrial custody become moot upon the conviction of
the petitioner.”); Williams v. New Jersey, No. 18-14964, 2020 WL
3259223, at *2 (D.N.J. June 16, 2020). “[I]f a case no longer
presents a live case or controversy, the case is moot, and the
federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.” Williams, 2020 WL
3259223, at *2 (citing Nextel W. Corp. v. Unity Twp., 282 F.3d
257, 261 (3d Cir. 2002)). Any challenge to his state conviction
must be filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he exhausts all his
state court remedies.
The Court will dismiss the § 2241 petition and motion for
remedy as moot. The dismissal is without prejudice to
Petitioner’s right to bring a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
if necessary, after he has exhausted his state court remedies.1
1 The Court expresses no opinion as to whether any forthcoming
petition has otherwise met the requirements of § 2254. The
resolution in this matter also has no effect on other litigation
brought by Plaintiff in this District including claims for
damages arising from his incarceration at Cumberland County
Jail, see Lawson v. Smith, et al., 20-cv-15705 (NLH)(AMD) and
Lawson v. Cumberland County Board of Chosen Freeholders, et al.,
23-cv-644 (NLH)(AMD), or his status as a member of the class in
Brown v. Warren, et al., 20-cv-7907 (NLH)(AMD).
To the extent a certificate of appealability is required, the
Court declines to issue one because reasonable jurists would
agree that the petition is moot. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Dated: February 7, 2024 s/ Noel L. Hillman
At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.