Disbro v. Jones

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BRADLEY ARTHUR DISBRO, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:24-cv-03125-D (BT)
§
TERRY JONES, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bradley Arthur Disbro, a former state pretrial detainee, filed a pro se habeas
petition in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons below, the Court
should dismiss Disbro’s petition as moot.
Background
Disbro was arrested and charged with “assault family violence/impeding
breath” in Greenville, Texas. Pet. at 3 (ECF No. 3). On December 3, 2024, the date
he mailed his § 2241 petition, Disbro was detained at the Hunt County Jail. See
generally Pet.
In his petition, Disbro states that he was “granted a PR Bond on the [assault
family violence/impeding breath] charge due to no indictment within 90 days.”
Pet. at 3. And he claims that his detention is unlawful because (1) there is not
probable cause to prosecute him because of a lack of evidence and witnesses and a
witness has signed a letter of non-prosecution; (2) he was arbitrarily detained for
Case 3:24-cv-03125-D-BT Document 11 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
55 days without bail, denied the right to be heard by a magistrate, and not informed
of the nature of the accusation against him; (3) his court-appointed attorney is
ineffective; and (4) he has suffered from an abuse of process because his court-
appointed attorney colluded with the prosecutor to ensure he would remain in jail.
Pet. at 5-6. By this action, he seeks “full dismissal of charges with prejudice and
release from jail, charges omitted from criminal record.” Pet. at 7.
On December 17, 2024, Disbro advised the Court that he was no longer
detained at the Hunt County Jail. See ECF No. 9.
Legal Standards and Analysis
Challenges raised in a pretrial habeas corpus petition are governed by 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See String v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998). A state
pretrial detainee may seek habeas relief under § 2241 only if he is “in custody” “in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3). Once a petitioner seeking relief under § 2241 is released from
confinement, his petition becomes moot if “the main thrust of [the] petition is to
be released from his confinement.” See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278
(5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (dismissing a § 2241 petition as moot after the
petitioner’s release); see also United States v. Boston, 419 F. App'x 505, 506 (5th
Cir. 2011) (“If the only relief sought by [a petitioner] cannot be granted, the case
is moot.”).
Here, the “main thrust” of Disbro’s petition was to secure his release from
confinement in Hunt County Jail. And because Disbro’s release provided him the
Case 3:24-cv-03125-D-BT Document 11 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
relief he ultimately sought in his petition, the Court should dismiss his petition as
moot. See Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss petitioner Bradley Arthur Disbro’s 28 U.S.C. §
2241 habeas petition as moot.
SO RECOMMENDED.
January 6, 2026.
_____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in
the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination
is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written
objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:24-cv-03125-D-BT Document 11 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>