Gongora-Baltan v. Healy

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWIN DANIEL GONGORA-BALTAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN IAN HEALY,
Respondent.
CASE NO. 4:24-cv-2252
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AMANDA M. KNAPP
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Edwin Daniel Gongora-Baltan’s petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on December 27, 2024, arguing that the Bureau of
Prisons took away his earned time credits under the First Step Act due to a final order of
removal. (ECF Doc. 1 (“Petition”).) In his Petition, Mr. Gongora-Baltan asserted that his
projected release date with good time conduct was August 24, 2025 (“Good Time Release date”),
and his projected release date with First Step Act credit was August 24, 2024. (Id. at p. 2; ECF
Doc. 1-2, p. 2.) He argued that Respondent’s assertion that there was a final order of removal
was erroneous and that the Court should order his First Step Act credit restored. (ECF Doc. 1, p.
3.) On April 2, 2025, Respondent filed a Return of Writ. (ECF Doc. 5.) Respondent agreed that
Petitioner’s projected Good Time Release date was August 24, 2025. (ECF Doc. 5-1, p. 1, ¶ 1.)
Respondent also asserted that the Department of Homeland Security issued a valid Notice and
Order of Expedited Removal to Petitioner on February 5, 2024, making Petitioner ineligible for
time credit under the First Step Act. (ECF Doc. 5, ECF Doc. 5-1, pp. 1-2, ¶ 2, ECF Doc. 5-1, p.
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/28/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
10.) Petitioner’s Traverse in reply to the Return of Writ was due on or before May 2, 2025.
(ECF Doc. 4.) Petitioner has not filed a Traverse.
Given the parties’ agreement that Mr. Gongora-Baltan’s projected Good Time Release
date was August 24, 2025, this Court must consider whether the claims set forth in the Petition
are moot. “Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution authorizes the federal
judiciary only to hear cases or controversies[.]” Gentry v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687, 693 (6th Cir.
2006). Thus, “federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction when the controversy has been
mooted, that is to say, when the ‘issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Id. (quoting Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625,
631 (1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969))). In the habeas context,
once a petitioner’s sentence has expired, “some concrete and continuing injury other than the
now-ended incarceration or parole—some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction—must exist
if the suit is to be maintained.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).
When a habeas petition attacks an underlying conviction, the Supreme Court has “been
willing to presume that a wrongful criminal conviction has continuing collateral consequences,”
so that the petition is not mooted by the petitioner’s release from custody. Spencer, 523 U.S. at
8; see also Gentry, 456 F.3d at 694-95. However, that presumption does not apply where the
habeas petition challenges only the petitioner’s sentence and not his conviction. Spencer, 523
U.S. at 12-14 (citing Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982)). In such circumstances, the
petitioner can avoid a mootness finding only if he demonstrates “collateral consequences”
stemming from the alleged sentencing violation. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14-16; see Witzke v.
Brewer, 849 F.3d 338, 341 (6th Cir. 2017) (finding a petitioner who disputes a parole revocation
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/28/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
but has completed that term of reincarceration “must demonstrate collateral consequences
stemming from the revocation or else face dismissal of his claims”).
Here, the Petition challenges only Mr. Gongora-Baltan’s sentence, and not the underlying
conviction. (See ECF Doc. 1.) Accordingly, the Petition may be moot if the Petitioner has been
released from custody, unless the Petitioner is able to demonstrate collateral consequences
stemming from the alleged violations. So that the Court may determine whether a live
controversy exists, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• 	On or before February 6, 2026, Respondent shall file a status report advising the
Court as to Petitioner’s current custody status;
• 	If the status report reflects that Petitioner is no longer in custody pursuant to the
sentence challenged in the Petition, Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before
February 27, 2026, why the Petition should not be dismissed as moot. Failure to
respond may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed as moot.
• 	Respondent may file a reply to Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, if
any, on or before March 6, 2026.
January 28, 2026
/s/Amanda M. Knapp
AMANDA M. KNAPP
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/28/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>