Gongora-Baltan v. Healy

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWIN DANIEL GONGORA-BALTAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WARDAN IAN HEALY, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 4:24-CV-2252
DISTRICT JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AMANDA M. KNAPP
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Edwin Gongora-Baltan is a citizen of Colombia. (ECF Doc. 5-1, p. 10.)
Acting pro se, he filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) took away his earned time credits under the First Step Act
due to a final order of removal. (ECF Doc. 1 (“Petition”).) This matter has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.2.
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS
the Petition as moot.
I. 	Procedural History
In his Petition, Mr. Gongora-Baltan asserted that his projected release date with good
time conduct (“Good Time Release date”) was August 24, 2025, and his projected release date
with First Step Act credit was August 24, 2024. (ECF Doc. 1, p. 2; ECF Doc. 1-2, p. 2.) He
argued that Respondent’s assertion that he is subject to a final order of removal is 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 and agreed that Petitioner’s projected Good Time
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 9 Filed: 05/28/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Release date was August 24, 2025. (ECF Doc. 5; 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.) Petitioner did not file a Traverse.
On January 28, 2026, the Court ordered Respondent to file a status report advising the
Court as to Petitioner’s custody status. (ECF Doc. 6.) Respondent filed a Notice on January 30,
2026, stating that Petitioner was no longer in Respondent’s custody and had been released to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on August 22, 2025, pursuant to a Final Order
of Removal. (ECF Doc. 7.) The Court also ordered Petitioner to show cause by February 27,
2026, why the Petition should not be dismissed as moot, noting that a “[f]ailure to respond may
result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed as moot.” (ECF Doc. 6, p. 3.)
Petitioner did not file a response to the order to show cause.
II. 	Discussion
“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).
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 9 Filed: 05/28/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
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. Id. 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. Id. at 14-16; see Witzke v. Brewer, 849 F.3d 338, 341 (6th Cir.
2017) (finding a petitioner who disputed a parole revocation but had completed the relevant 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—specifically, the
BOP’s determination that he was ineligible for First Step Act credits because he was subject to a
final order of removal (ECF Doc. 1, pp. 2-3)—and does not challenge the underlying conviction.
Since Respondent has advised the Court that Mr. Gongora-Baltan was transferred to ICE custody
on August 22, 2025 (ECF Doc. 7), and the evidence further reflects that his sentence expired on
August 25, 2025 (ECF Doc. 5-1, p. 6), Mr. Gongora-Baltan must show “collateral consequences”
stemming from the alleged sentencing violation if he is to establish a live controversy. See
Spencer, 523 U.S. at 14-16. However, Mr. Gongora-Baltan did not respond to this Court’s
January 28, 2026 order to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as moot.1 (See
ECF Doc. 6 (ordering Petitioner to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed).)
1 The Court recognizes that the copy of the Court’s January 28 Order sent to Petitioner was returned as undeliverable
(ECF Doc. 8), but the Court’s initial order instructed both parties to inform the Court immediately upon any change
of address (ECF Doc. 4, p. 3). Petitioner has failed to update his address with the Court, and the circumstances suggest
Mr. Gongora-Baltan may have been removed from the country pursuant to a final order of removal.
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 9 Filed: 05/28/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
Considering Mr. Gongora-Baltan’s release into ICE custody pursuant to a final order of
removal, the expiration of his sentence, his failure to file a Traverse or a response to this Court’s
order to show cause, and the lack of any evidence suggesting that he will suffer collateral
consequences that could be redressed by granting his Petition, the undersigned recommends that
the Court DISMISS his Petition as moot. See United States v. Goldberg, 239 F. App’x 993, 993-
94 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[D]efendant does not challenge his conviction . . . the only aspect of his
sentence that defendant challenges is the imposition of a five month term of imprisonment. The
five month sentence expired on or about January 1, 2007. Consequently, the matter is now
moot.”); Enazeh v. Davis, 107 F. App’x 489, 491 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Mootness results when events
occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested
relief.”) (quoting Carras v. Williams, 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986)).
III. 	Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS the
Petition (ECF Doc. 1) as moot.
DATE: May 28, 2026
/s/ Amanda M. Knapp
AMANDA M. KNAPP
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this document. Failure to file
objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985).
Case: 4:24-cv-02252-PAB Doc #: 9 Filed: 05/28/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>