# Ramirez-Camela

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · June 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357766

## Case

- **Full name:** Bruno Ramirez-Camela v. Felipe Martinez Jr.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 12, 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/11357766

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

BRUNO RAMIREZ-CAMELA #22275-424 CASE NO. 2:23-CV-01126 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

FELIPE MARTINEZ JR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner Bruno Ramirez-Camela (“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 (Sth 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 vy. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (Sth 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 (Sth 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 (Sth 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.
t/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11357766. Public record. Not legal advice.