Coulter v. Tellez et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BRAYLON RAY COULTER, §
#58976-177, §
PETITIONER, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-2511-K-BK
§
HERIBERTO TELLEZ, ET AL., §
RESPONDENTS. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Braylon Ray Coulter’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was referred to the United States magistrate judge
for case management, including the entry of findings and a recommended disposition. On
September 16, 2025, Coulter, a federal inmate serving the remainer of his sentence on home
confinement, petitioned for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 3. He
challenges the execution of his sentence and seeks 167 days in time credits under the First Step
Act (FSA). Coulter contends that these credits would result in his immediate release to
supervised release and from electronic monitoring (which was part of his home-confinement
protocol). Doc. 3 at 6-7. Online research confirms that Coulter was released from the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on September 30, 2025, shortly after filing this petition. Therefore,
the issue presented in his habeas petition is now moot.
“Article III of the Constitution limits federal ‘Judicial Power,’ that is, federal-court
jurisdiction, to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445
Case 3:25-cv-02511-K-BK Document 6 Filed 02/21/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Page 2 of 2
U.S. 388, 395 (1980). A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or
the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)).
Coulter only sought immediate release to supervised release. Because Coulter has been
released to supervised release, his petition is moot and should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
SO RECOMMENDED on February 21, 2026.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will 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). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation 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), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to object
to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-02511-K-BK Document 6 Filed 02/21/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>