Whatley v. Livingston, No. 1:2009cv00229 - Document 21 (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding petitioner's petition. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 12/23/09. (bjc, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION JOHN MARK WHATLEY § VS. § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09cv229 MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner John Mark Whatley, formerly an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2005, petitioner was convicted of several criminal offenses in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. He was In this petition, petitioner does not challenge his criminal convictions. Instead, he complains that he has been improperly been denied release on mandatory supervision. On December 4, 2009, petitioner notified the court that he has been released on mandatory supervision. Discussion As set forth above, petitioner is not attempting to have his convictions invalidated. As a result, granting relief to petitioner would not shorten the amount of time during which he is subject to restraints on his liberty as a result of his conviction. Instead, granting relief to petitioner would only permit him to be released from actual confinement. As petitioner has already been released from actual confinement, this petition is moot and will therefore be dismissed. See Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1987). Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this petition for writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as moot. A final judgment shall be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. If petitioner believes his petition is not moot, he should file a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision. SIGNED this the 23 day of December, 2009. ____________________________ Thad Heartfield United States District Judge 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.
