GREEN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PITTSBURGH DIVISION

ERIK LAMONT GREEN, )

)

) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-01595

Petitioner, )

) United States Magistrate Judge

vs. ) Christopher B. Brown

)

STEVEN PELESKY, )

)

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge

Petitioner, Erik Lamont Green, brings this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 challenging his pretrial detention in Commonwealth v. Green, No. CP-65-CR-

0001436-2025 (C.C.P. Westmoreland Cnty). ECF No. 4. Because Green pled guilty

on February 23, 2026 and was sentenced to a period of incarceration, the petition

will dismissed as moot. To the extent one is necessary, a certificate of appealability

will be denied.

The Court will likewise deny the related motions at ECF Nos. 11, 12, 17, 18,

21, 22, 25 and 26 as moot.

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. ECF

Nos. 20 and 23.

I. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

On April 29, 2025, the Commonwealth charged Green with a number of

assault and drug offenses. Commonwealth v. Green, No. CP-65-CR-0001436-2025

(C.C.P. Westmoreland Cnty) (available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/

CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-65-CR-0001436-2025) (last viewed 3/24/2026).

The matter was held for court and Green was ordered held without bond. Id.

Green initiated this case on October 15, 2025, and at that time, he was a

state pre-trial detainee. In the Petition, Green attacks his pretrial detention. ECF

No. 4. On February 23, 2026, just four days after the District Attorney responded to

Green’s federal habeas petition, Green pled guilty to one drug offense and was

sentenced that same day to a maximum term of imprisonment of 729 days, with 301

days of credit for time served. Id.

II. Discussion

For state prisoners, “federal habeas corpus is substantially a post-conviction

remedy.” Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441 (3d Cir. 1975) (citation omitted).

Section 2254 provides a mechanism for federal habeas relief to state prisoners “in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)

(emphasis added); see also Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir. 2001) (a

state prisoner must generally seek relief through a petition brought pursuant to

section 2254 and not via section 2241). In limited circumstances, a petitioner

seeking relief before a state judgment has been entered may proceed via the more

general habeas statute contained in section 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)

(habeas relief available to a petitioner who is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]”); Duran v. Thomas, 393 F.

App’x 3, 4, (3d Cir. 2010) (“[S]ection 2241 authorizes a federal court to issue a writ

of habeas corpus to any pretrial detainee who is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). The court's authority under section 2241 must be exercised

sparingly to avoid “pre-trial habeas interference by federal courts in the normal

functioning of state criminal processes.” Moore, 515 F.2d at 445-46. For example,

courts have permitted state prisoners to invoke section 2241 to challenge the

legality of their pre-trial confinement where the upcoming trial would violate the

petitioner's double jeopardy rights, see Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 885-87 (9th

Cir. 2004), or where the petitioner is being deprived of the right to a speedy trial.

See Chavis v. Pennsylvania, 434 F. App’x 50, 51 (3d Cir. 2011).

But a petitioner’s conviction and sentence in state court renders moot his

section 2241 federal habeas petition challenging pretrial detention. See Robinson v.

Harper, Civ. No. 22-1223, 2024 WL 4150433, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2024)

(collecting cases), certificate of appealability denied sub. nom. Robinson v.

Superintendent Smith SCI, No. 24-2579, 2024 WL 5415753 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2024),

and motion for relief from judgment denied, No. CV 22-1223, 2025 WL 525056 (W.D.

Pa. Feb. 18, 2025). This is because a matter becomes moot when “it no longer

present[s] a case or controversy under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution.” Spencer

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists

through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. . . . The

parties must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Id.

(quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1990)). “If developments

occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in

the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested

relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.,

77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).

Here, Green filed his section 2241 habeas petition while he was awaiting

trial. Since the time of the filing, Green has entered a negotiated plea of guilt and

was sentenced. The present petition has thus become moot and will be dismissed

without prejudice to the filing of any future section 2254 petition concerning his

state-court judgment after Green exhausts all state court remedies. See Rice v.

State of Pennsylvania, Civ. No. 16-767, 2016 WL 3287573, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26,

2016) (“Rice's subsequent conviction renders moot his petition for pretrial release

and for the dismissal of those charges. We thus conclude that Rice's § 2241 petition

should be dismissed in its entirety although without prejudice to the filing of any

future § 2254 petition concerning his state court judgment”), report and

recommendation adopted, Civ. No. 16-767, 2016 WL 3181903 (E.D. Pa. June 8,

2016). To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, the same will be

denied because jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable. See., e.g.,

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, this case will be dismissed as moot, and a certificate of

appealability will be denied. The related motions at ECF Nos. 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22,

25 and 26 also will be denied as moot. An appropriate order follows.

Date: March 24th, 2026 BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown

Christopher B. Brown

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: ERIK LAMONT GREEN

1176-2025

WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON

3000 S. Grande Blvd.

Greensburg, PA 15601

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

James T. Lazar

Westmoreland County District Attorney's Office

(via ECF electronic notification)