Chavez v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County California et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JUAN CHAVEZ, §
#7036744, §
PETITIONER, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:26-CV-281-B-BK
§
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES §
COUNTY CALIFORNIA, 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, Petitioner Juan Chavez’s complaint,
construed as 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 issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition when appropriate. On October 3, 2025, Chavez, a detainee at the Los
Angeles (LA) County Jail, mailed two pleadings and a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis to the District of Columbia (DC) court. Doc. 3; Doc. 4. The pleadings were eventually
forwarded to this Court and filed on February 3, 2026. Doc. 3 at 1; Doc. 4 at 1. As best as the
Court can glean, Chavez challenges his detention at the LA County Jail and seeks release from
confinement. Doc. 3. However, Chavez was released from the LA County Jail on November 24,
2025.1 Therefore, the issue presented in this case is now moot.
1 See Los Angeles County Jail Inmate Information Center (last accessed on Feb. 6, 2026), of
which the Court takes judicial notice.
Case 3:26-cv-00281-B-BK Document 6 Filed 02/21/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Page 2 of 2
“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
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)).
Chavez’s construed habeas petition only seeks release from custody. Doc. 3. Because he
has now been released, 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 file
objections to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00281-B-BK Document 6 Filed 02/21/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>