The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
PEDRO VALADEZ-CORONADO #28202- CASE NO. 2:24-CV-001242 SEC P
179
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
FELIPE MARTINEZ JR MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner Pedro Valadez-Coronado (“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 v. 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 15th day of June, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE