# Escalona-Reid

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · June 11, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357711

## Case

- **Full name:** Willmer Dimitri Escalona-Reid v. Warden Et Al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 11, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357711

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

WILLMER DIMITRI ESCALONA-REID CASE NO. 2:23-CV-01625 SEC P
#54070-069

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

WARDEN ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner Willmer Dimitri Escalona-Reid (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. At the time of filing, Petitioner was an inmate in
the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). However, according to BOP’s Online
Inmate Locator System, Petitioner has been released from BOP custody.1
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court
jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S.
388, 395 (1980). An action is moot “when the court cannot grant the relief requested by
the moving party.” 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. 1969) and Bailey v. Southerland,
821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)). 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 Fed. Appx. 329, 331 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Thus, if a

1 https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
controversy becomes moot, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Lewis v.
Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990).

The proper purpose of a habeas petition is to challenge the fact or duration of a
petitioner’s confinement. Cook v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t,
37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994). In other words, habeas exists solely to “grant relief from
unlawful imprisonment or custody and . . . cannot be used properly for any other purpose.”
Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976). A petitioner’s release from
the custody of the BOP thus renders his habeas action moot. See, e.g., Bailey v.

Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987) (dismissing a § 2241 petition as moot
following release because “the thrust of [the] petition is to be released from confinement”);
Aldaco v. Nash, 693 F. App’x 336, 337 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (same).
Because Petitioner is no longer in custody, his § 2241 petition is moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this matter be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 11th day of June, 2026.

__________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357711. Public record. Not legal advice.