The opinion
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only
JOSE PORTILLO,
ORDER
Plaintiff, 19-CV-04106 (JMA)
-against- FILED
CLERK
4/2/2025 12:15 pm
TIMOTHY D. SINI, Suffolk County District Attorney, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
MICHAEL J. FRANCHI, Warden, Suffolk County EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Correctional Facility, LONG ISLAND OFFICE
DENNIS M. BROWN, Suffolk County Attorney,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Jose Portillo
pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) At the time Portillo filed this petition, he was charged
with conspiracy and was in detention awaiting trial. (Id.) Portillo sought habeas relief based on
Defendants’ purported delay in responding to petitioner’s discovery demands, which he claims
violates his constitutional rights to due process, speedy trial, and effective assistance of counsel.
Portillo also claimed that his bail is excessive. (See Id.)
The Court has carefully considered this petition and finds that Portillo’s claims for habeas
relief under U.S.C. § 2241 are moot. After the filing of this petition, Portillo was convicted in the
underlying state case. He is now in the midst of an appeal from that judgment. See People v. Jose
J. Portillo, No. 2022-03726, 1973/2019, 2024 WL 1432160 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 3, 2024). His
pretrial habeas petition has thus been mooted by his subsequent conviction and sentence. See, e.g.,
Mulkey v. Niagara Cnty. Sheriff, 720 F. Supp. 3d 237, 241 (W.D.N.Y. 2024) (denying petitioner’s
pretrial habeas petition as moot because “his [current] custodial status is based on his subsequent
criminal convictions, which he does not challenge in this petition.”); Thorne v. Warden, Brooklyn
defendant rather than merely on a criminal charge not yet brought to trial, the issue as to the legality
of his continued pretrial detention has been mooted, and it therefore becomes unnecessary to
resolve the constitutional issues presented.”). Thus, the instant petition is moot.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as moot. The
Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2025
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE