Duke v. Dallas County Jail

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LONNIE DUKE,
#23050976
§
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:24-cv-0261-G (BT)
§
CITY OF DALLAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
§
§
§
Respondents. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Lonnie Duke, while detained at the Dallas County jail, filed a pro
se application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Am. Pet.
(ECF No. 7). This matter was referred to the undersigned United States magistrate
judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of
reference.
For the reasons explained below, the Court should dismiss Duke’s habeas
petition as moot.
Legal Standards and Analysis
Section 2241 remains “ ‘available for challenges by a state prisoner who is
not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment.’ For example, prisoners ‘in state
custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting
extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction’ are
able to take advantage of § 2241 relief.” In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 782 (4th Cir.
Case 3:24-cv-00261-G-BT Document 17 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2016) (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)); see
also Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 475 (2023) (Section 2241 remains available
where “a prisoner challenges ‘the legality of his detention’ without attacking the
validity of his sentence.” (emphasis in original)).
But, once a pre-trial detainee is convicted, claims for federal habeas relief
for pretrial issues become moot. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228-29 (5th
Cir. 1993) (“Yohey claims that the state court erred in refusing to grant
his pretrial habeas relief. However, such claims for federal habeas relief
for pretrial issues are mooted by Yohey’s subsequent conviction”) (citing Fassler
v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that habeas
petitions challenging legality of pretrial detention were rendered moot by
conviction) (additional citation omitted)).
A review of publicly available court records for Dallas County reflects that
Duke was convicted after filing his Section 2241 petition. See State of Tex. v. Duke,
F-23-56983 (195th Jud. Distr. Ct.); State of Tex. v. Duke, No. F-23-61005 (195th
Jud. Distr. Ct.). So, his claims for federal habeas relief related to pretrial issues
are moot and should be dismissed.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss the construed habeas petition corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 as moot.
Case 3:24-cv-00261-G-BT Document 17 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Dated 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 Services
Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:24-cv-00261-G-BT Document 17 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>