Poole v. Guerrera

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
AARON BERNARD POOLE, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-1724
ERIC GUERRERO,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Aaron Bernard
Poole's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and Respondent Eric
Guerrero's Motion to Dismiss. Having carefully considered the
petition, the motion, all the arguments and authorities
submitted by the parties, and the relevant record, the Court is
of the opinion that Poole's petition should be dismissed as
moot.
I. Background
In 2015, Poole pled guilty in the 178 th District Court of
Harris County, Texas of assault and being a felon in possession
of a firearm. He received two concurrent ten year terms of
imprisonment. Docket Entry Nos. 10-1 at 131, 10-3 at 131.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

Poole was released to mandatory supervision on January 5,
2021. Docket Entry No. 10-3 at 59-60. Had Pool successfully
completed his mandatory supervision, his sentences would have
discharged on June 30, 2024. Id. at 60. Poole, however, was
arrested on a pre-revocation warrant on January 20, 2022. Id.
Whether Poole would receive credit for the one year and 15 days
he spent on mandatory supervision depended on whether his
mandatory supervision was revoked. � at 61-62. Because he
was being held on new charges, the revocation decision would not
be made until Poole's pending charges were adjudicated. 	l..ct.:.. at
70.
In 2025, Poole was convicted of manufacture or delivery of
a controlled substance, and unlawful possession of a firearm by
a felon, with two enhancements. Poole was sentenced to 30-years
imprisonment on those charges. Exh. A to Motion to Dismiss
(Docket Entry No. 12).
In August, 2024, Poole filed state habeas corpus
applications challenging his detention past the discharge date
of his 2015 sentences. Docket Entries 10-1 at 22, 24; 10-3 at
22, 24, 59-60. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the
applications. Docket Entries 10-2; 10-4.
On March 7, 2025, Poole filed this federal habeas petition.
2
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

On July 1, 2025, while this federal petition was pending, Poole
was convicted on the pending charges. His mandatory supervision
was revoked on July 10, 2025, and he forfeited the one year and
15 days he spent on mandatory supervision. Motion to Dismiss,
Exh. B. That forfeiture reset the discharge date on his 2015
convictions to July 14, 2025. Id.
On October 20, 2025, the respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the petition as moot. Poole has not responded to the
motion.
II. Analysis
Poole raises several claims pertaining to his detention on
the pre-revocation warrant. As noted above, after Poole filed
this petition, his 2015 sentences discharged; he is now in
custody on his 2025 convictions. His detention on the pre-
revocation warrant was in connection with the 2015 convictions.
Because those sentences have discharged and Poole's mandatory
supervision was revoked, he is no longer in custody on the pre
revocation warrant, and this Court cannot order him released
from that custody.
"Under Article III of the Constitution this Court may only
adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies." Honig v. Doe, 484
U.S. 305, 317 (1988). "Mootness has two aspects: 'when the
3
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

issues presented are no longer live" or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome."' united States
Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (quoting
Powell v. Mccomack, 395 U.S. 486, 496(1969)). uif a dispute
has been resolved or if it has evanesced because of changed
circumstances, including the passage of time, it is considered
moot. With the designation of mootness comes the concomitant
designation of non-justiciability." American Med. Ass'n v.
Bowen, 857 F.2d 267, 270 (5th Cir. 1988)(citations omitted).
Because the custody challenged in the petition has
discharged, and the petitioner is no longer in custody pursuant
to the pre-revocation warrant, this case is moot.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's Motion to
Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 12) is GRANTED, and Poole's Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
(Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED
IV. Certificate of Appea1abi1itv
Poole has not requested a certificate of appealability
("COA"), but this Court may detemine whether he is entitled to
this relief in light of the foregoing rulings. � Alexander v.
Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) ("It is perfectly
4
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

lawful for district court's [sic] to deny COA sua sponte. The
statute does not require that a petitioner move for a COA; it
merely states that an appeal may not be taken without a
cert cate of appealabil having been issued.") A petitioner
may obtain a COA either from the district court or an appellate
court, but an appellate court will not consider a petitioner's
request for a COA until the district court has denied such a
request. � Whitehead v, Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th
1988); see also Hill v, Johnson, 114 F.3d 78, 82 (5th Cir. 1997)
(" [T] he district court should continue to review COA requests
before the court of appeals does."). "A plain reading of the
AEDPA compels the conclusion that COAs are granted on an issue
by-issue basis, thereby limiting appellate review to those
issues alone." Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir.
1997).
A COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a
"substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."
28 u.s.c. § 2253(c)(2); see also Qnited States v, Kimler, 150
F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1998). A petitioner "makes a
substantial showing when he demonstrates that his application
involves issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, that
another court could resolve the issues differently, or that the
5
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

issues are suitable enough to deserve encouragement to proceed
further." Hernandez y. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir.
2000). The Supreme Court has stated that:
Where a district court has rejected the constitutional
claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy
§ 2253 (c) is straightforward: The petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
district court's assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong. The issue becomes somewhat
more complicated where the district court
denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds. We
hold as follows: When the district court denies a
habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching
the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA
should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.
Slack y. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
This Court has carefully considered Poole's petition. The
Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable
that Poole' s claims are moot. Poole thus fails to make a
"substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."
28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). The Court therefore concludes that
Poole is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
6
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

V. Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED and this
case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No certificate of
appealability shall issue.
The Clerk shall notify all parties and provide them with a
true copy of this Order.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the day of June,
2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Case 4:25-cv-01724 Document 16 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7