The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
CHARLES THOMPSON DOCKET NO. 6:25-cv-00649
SECTION P
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
FCI OAKDALE MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed by pro se
Petitioner Charles Thompson. At the time of filing, Petitioner was an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institute in Oakdale, Louisiana (FCIO).
Petitioner filed the instant action asserting that even though he had earned sufficient time
credits and been found administratively eligible for prerelease custody, he remained unlawfully
confined. Doc. 1-2, p. 1. He asked this Court to order his immediate transfer to prerelease custody
to either a Residential Reentry Center or home confinement. Id. at p. 17. 1
Thompson has since been released to a Residential Reentry Center. See Inmate Locator-
BOP, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited December 1, 2025).
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] be
DENIED and DISMISSED as it presents no case or controversy and, thus, this Court lacks
jurisdiction.2
1 The petition also asserts claims under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, by which Petitioner seeks
“declaratory relief . . . and injunctive relief . . . compelling the Bureau to effectuate the transfer” of Petitioner to
prerelease custody. Doc. 1-2, p. 13. As the relief sought under the APA is the same as that sought by the writ of
habeas corpus, the APA claims must suffer the same fate as the writ of habeas corpus.
2 When, as here, “the court cannot grant the relief requested by the moving party,” then the matter is moot. Salgado v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 220 F. App’x 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Brown v. Resor, 407 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved
by this recommendation have fourteen (14) business days from service of this report and
recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond
to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any
objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal
conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the
date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved
party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District
Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See, Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this Ist day of December, 2025.
T Ho} AS P. LEBLANC
UNITED S'R¥TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1969) and Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (Sth Cir. 1987)). The issue of whether a case is moot presents a
jurisdictional matter because it implicates the Article II] requirement that an actual controversy exist at all stages of
federal court proceedings. Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278. A moot case “presents no Article III case or controversy, and a
court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issue it presents.” Adair v. Dretke, 150 F. App’x. 329, 331 (Sth
Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Absent jurisdiction, we must dismiss.
-2-