Ronald Drakos, II v. Ed Gonzalez, No. 20-20298 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-20298 Document: 00515604573 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 16, 2020 No. 20-20298 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Ronald Thomas Drakos, II, Petitioner—Appellant, versus Ed Gonzalez, Harris County Sheriff Department, Respondent—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-1505 Before Clement, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ronald Thomas Drakos, II, a state pre-trial detainee, has moved for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The district court determined that Drakos’s Fifth Amendment challenge to his detention based on COVID-19 concerns was tantamount to a challenge to the conditions of his confinement, not the fact * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-20298 Document: 00515604573 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2020 No. 20-20298 or duration thereof. Therefore, the court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was the proper vehicle for Drakos’s challenge. To obtain a COA, Drakos “must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). During the pendency of his COA motion, Drakos was released on a surety bond, thereby rendering the controversy moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Center for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir. 2006); McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 848-49 (5th Cir. 2004). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. The motion for a COA is DENIED as moot. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.