Ocana v. Warden of FCI-Schuylkill

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSHUA OCANA,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF FCI-SCHUYLKILL,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:25-CV-00770
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is Petitioner Joshua Ocana’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner seeks to
have his custody classification decreased to Community Custody. (Doc. 1). It
appears that Petitioner has already had his custody classification changed to
Community Custody. Therefore, the court will dismiss the petition as moot.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL H ISTORY
Petitioner initiated this action by filing the instant petition on April 28, 2025.
(Doc. 1.) The court received and docketed the petition on May 2, 2025. (Id.)
Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution Schuylkill (“FCI-
Schuylkill”) at the time he filed his petition. (Doc. 1.) In the petition, he seeks to
have his custody classification changed to Community Custody. (Id.) Following
payment of the filing fee in full on May 13, 2025, the court entered an order
requiring Respondent to respond to the petition. (Doc. 4; Doc. 5). Respondent
Case 1:25-cv-00770-JPW-EW Document 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
filed a suggestion of mootness on August 20, 2025 stating that Petitioner’s custody
classification had already been changed to Community Custody and seeking the
dismissal of the petition under the doctrine of mootness. (Doc. 7.) The record
demonstrates that as of July 8, 2025 his custody classification was Community
Custody. (Doc. 7-4.)
VENUE
A § 2241petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is in
custody. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,
494–95 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the person who seeks
relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful
custody.”) At the time the petition was filed, Petitioner was housed at FCI-
Schuylkill in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, which is located in this district. See
28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Therefore, this court is the proper venue for the action.
DISCUSSION
In light of Petitioner’s change in custody classification, this matter is now
moot and must be dismissed. According to the mootness doctrine, “[i]f
developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's
personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant
the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny
Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
Case 1:25-cv-00770-JPW-EW Document 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Here, Petitioner sought to have his custody classification changed to
Community Custody. (Doc. 1). As of July 8, 2025, his custody classification was
listed as Community Custody. (Doc. 7-4). Thus, this ground for relief is now
moot.
CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, the Section 2241 petition will be dismissed as
moot. The Clerk of Court will be directed to close the case.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: February 2, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00770-JPW-EW Document 8 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3