Michael Ladre Dunbar v. RAUL CAMPOS, Jr., Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LADRE DUNBAR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RAUL CAMPOS, Jr., Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-55848
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00875-TWR-BGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Ladre Dunbar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
denying as moot his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial
detention under 28 U.S.C § 2241.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 Dunbar’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. His motion
for appointment of counsel is denied.
FILED
JAN 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55848
We review de novo, see Zegarra-Gomez v. I.N.S., 314 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.
2003), and we affirm.
In his § 2241 petition and on appeal, Dunbar contends that his pretrial
detention was unlawful. He further argues that the district court erred by waiting
to rule on his § 2241 petition until after he was convicted in his underlying
criminal case. We agree with the district court that Dunbar’s challenge to his
pretrial detention became moot upon his conviction. See Barker v. Estelle, 913
F.2d 1433, 1440 (9th Cir. 1990) (appellant’s conviction rendered moot his
challenge to a prior detention hearing). To the extent Dunbar seeks to raise other
challenges to his prosecution and conviction, such arguments are premature.
Dunbar is not precluded from raising these arguments on direct appeal from the
judgment entered in his criminal case.
Dunbar’s motions for a stay of his criminal proceeding in the district court
and to lodge interview and body camera videos are denied.
The motion to file without a certificate of service is granted and Dunbar is
informed that the court has considered each of his filings. Dunbar’s motion
requesting copies of filings is granted as to those filings he has not yet received.
The Clerk will send Dunbar a copy of the docket and copies of his filings at
Docket Entry No. 10 and 13.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --