Nelson v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL BRANDON-ELZIE NELSON,§

#24018550, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:25-cv-452-K-BN

§

MARIAN BROWN, §

§

Respondent. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Michael Brandon-Elzie Nelson, while detained at the Dallas County

jail, filed pro se an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See

Dkt. Nos. 4, 5. Because the filings were made in a pending civil rights case brought

by Nelson, the filings were severed and opened as a new civil habeas proceeding. See

Dkt. No. 3.

United States District Judge Ed Kinkeade referred this matter to the

undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.

And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

recommendation that the Court should dismiss the construed habeas petition as

moot.

Discussion

Section 2241 remains “‘available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not

in custody pursuant to a state court judgment.’ For example, prisoners ‘in state

custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting

extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction’ are able

to take advantage of § 2241 relief.” In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 782 (4th Cir. 2016)

(quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Jones v.

Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 475 (2023) (Section 2241 remains available where “a prisoner

challenges ‘the legality of his detention’ without attacking the validity of his sentence.”

(emphasis in original)).

But, once a pre-trial detainee is convicted, claims for federal habeas relief for

pretrial issues become moot. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228-29 (5th Cir. 1993)

(“Yohey claims that the state court erred in refusing to grant his pretrial habeas

relief. However, such claims for federal habeas relief for pretrial issues are mooted

by Yohey’s subsequent conviction”) (citing Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016,

1018 (5th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that habeas petitions challenging legality of pretrial

detention were rendered moot by conviction) (additional citation omitted).)

A review of publicly available court records for Dallas County reflects that

Nelson was convicted after filing his Section 2241 petition. See State v. Nelson, Nos.

F-24-16982 (Dallas Cnty. Crim. Dist. Ct. 2 Mar. 19, 2025). So his claims for federal

habeas relief related to pretrial issues are moot and should be dismissed.

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss the construed habeas petition corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 as moot.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. □□□□

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.

United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

DATED: August 6, 2025

DAVIDL.HORAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-