WESTMORELAND v. STEBERGER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JER’BRELL KEON 	: 	CIVIL ACTION
WESTMORELAND, 	:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	NO. 26-3708
:
CHERYL STEBERGER, 	:
WARDEN OF LANCASTER 	:
COUNTY PRISON, 	:
Respondent. 	:
MEMORANDUM
KENNEY, J. 	OCTOBER 13, 2026
Petitioner Jer’brell Westmoreland initiated this action pro se on May 29, 2026, seeking
release from and challenging the legality of his pre-trial detention. See ECF No. 5. On June 22,
2026, Magistrate Judge José Raúl Arteaga filed a thorough Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition (the “Petition”) be summarily
dismissed without prejudice. See ECF No. 8 at 1. Petitioner filed pro se Objections to the Report
and Recommendation on July 27, 2026. 	See ECF No. 9. 	As discussed below, the procedural
posture of this case has changed since the time that the Report and Recommendation was issued.
For the following reasons, the Court will DECLINE to adopt the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 8), OVERRULE Petitioner’s objections (ECF No. 9), and SUMMARILY DISMISS
the Petition (ECF No. 5) AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No certificate of appealability
shall issue.
I. 	DISCUSSION
On May 29, 2026, Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his pre-trial detention. ECF No. 5 at 1. Petitioner was a pre-trial
detainee at the Lancaster County Prison in Lancaster, Pennsylvania at the time that he filed his
Case 5:26-cv-03708-CFK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petition. Id. On June 22, 2026, Magistrate Judge Arteaga issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that the Petition be summarily dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner “has
not exhausted his claims in state court and he has not shown any exceptional circumstances
requiring habeas review before his state court trial.” 	ECF No. 8 at 1. 	Petitioner raises several
objections to the Report and Recommendation, which generally fall under the same theme and can
be summarized as follows: Petitioner concedes that he has not exhausted his claims in state court,
but 	contends 	that 	his 	ineffective 	assistance 	of 	counsel 	claims 	present 	an 	extraordinary
circumstance that warrants federal intervention and excuses exhaustion. See ECF No. 9.
Under narrow circumstances, state pre-trial detainees can challenge their pre-trial detention
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. “Because a pre-trial detainee is not yet ‘in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court,’ relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not available.” Jackson v. Clements,
796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting Jacobs v. McCaughtry, 251 F.3d 596,
597–98 (7th Cir. 2001)). Petitioner thus correctly filed his Petition pursuant to § 2241 in the first
instance. Id. However, over the course of this litigation, Petitioner has since been convicted of
three charges after a multi-day jury trial: (1) criminal homicide; (2) conspiracy – criminal
homicide; and (3) criminal attempt – criminal homicide. 	See Commonwealth v. Westmoreland,
CP-36-CR-0002424-2023 (Lancaster Cnty. Ct. Comm. Pl.) (indicating that Petitioner was found
guilty of three charges on September 21, 2026 after a trial). 1 His state court docket reflects that
he is awaiting sentencing for his convictions. Id. Since Petitioner has been convicted, he is “no
longer a pre-trial detainee” and the claims that he brought related to his pre-trial detention have
1 The Court can take judicial notice of a state court docket as a public record. See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2) (allowing courts to take judicial notice of facts that “can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); see also Orabi v.
Att’y Gen. of U.S., 738 F.3d 535, 537 n.1 (3d Cir. 2014) (“We may take judicial notice of the
contents of another [c]ourt’s docket.” (collecting cases)).
Case 5:26-cv-03708-CFK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3
been rendered “moot.” Jackson, 796 F.3d at 843 (collecting cases); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 228–29 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[S]uch claims for federal habeas relief for pretrial issues are
mooted by [the petitioner’s] subsequent conviction.” (collecting cases)).
“In order for federal courts to retain jurisdiction over a case, there must be an ‘actual,
ongoing controvers[y],’ and the absence of one renders a case moot and deprives the court of
subject matter jurisdiction.” 	Jackson, 796 F.3d at 843 (quoting Fed’n of Adver. Indus.
Representatives, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 924, 929 (7th Cir. 2003)). 	Accordingly, the
Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition, and will summarily dismiss the
Petition as moot without prejudice to Petitioner filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition once he
exhausts his state court remedies. Id.; see also Piskanin v. Krysevig, 349 F. App’x 683, 685 (3d
Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of a § 2241 habeas petition as moot where the charges
were dropped against a state pre-trial detainee during the pendency of the litigation related to his
habeas petition); Owens v. Pacovsky, No. 24-cv-5411, 2024 WL 4876936, at *2–3 (E.D. Pa. Nov.
22, 2024) (dismissing a § 2241 habeas petition as moot where the petitioner was recommitted to
serve his sentence); Phillips v. Wakefield, No. 23-cv-2683, 2024 WL 3165289, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa.
June 25, 2024) (dismissing a § 2241 habeas petition as moot where the pre-trial detainee pled
guilty and was sentenced in state court while his habeas petition was pending); Rodriguez-Arevalo
v. Salamon, No. 22-cv-0150, 2022 WL 5238116, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2022) (dismissing a §
2241 habeas petition as moot where the petitioner was “no longer a pretrial detainee” and was
“now in custody pursuant to [a] guilty plea and [was] awaiting sentence”); Williams v. Reitz, No.
18-cv-2102, 2019 WL 13255454, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 29, 2019) (dismissing a § 2241 habeas
petition as moot where the petitioner was “no longer a pretrial detainee”).
To the extent a certificate of appealability is required, the Court declines to issue one
Case 5:26-cv-03708-CFK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4
because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and
reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether Petitioner’s § 2241 habeas petition should
be summarily dismissed as moot without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000).
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, in light of the change in the procedural posture of this case, the
Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8), overrules Petitioner’s
objections (ECF No. 9), and summarily dismisses the Petition as moot without prejudice (ECF No.
5). No certificate of appealability shall issue. An appropriate Order will follow.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Chad F. Kenney
CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03708-CFK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 4