Banana v. Brookhart

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DONALD BANANA,
Petitioner,
vs.
DEE DEE BROOKHART,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:24-cv-1109-DWD
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Petitioner Donald Banana’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Petitioner was incarcerated at Lawrence Correction
Center at the time he filed his petition but has since been released from custody. See IDOC
website, 	search 	for 	Petitioner’s 	IDOC 	number, 	M42740, 	available 	at
http://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/Offender/Pages/InmateSearch.aspx 	(last 	visited
November 6, 2025) (showing “Inmate NOT found” when searching Petitioner’s name and
inmate number).
Petitioner pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon and escape for violating
electronic monitoring on August 31, 2022, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Petitioner was sentenced to a total of six years in prison to be followed by a one-year term
of mandatory supervised release. See Sentencing Order, People v. Banana, No. 20-CR-6353
(Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 31, 2022); Sentencing Order, People v. Banana, No. 20-CR-5224
(Cook Cnty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 31, 2022). Petitioner filed the instant Petition April 15, 2024,
Case 3:24-cv-01109-DWD Document 21 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
claiming that he was being held beyond his release date after accruing various sentencing
credits. (Doc. 1). The Petition was not clear as to whether Petitioner sought release from
the correctional facility in which he was incarcerated to begin his term of mandatory
supervised release, or if he believed that he was entitled to release from custody
altogether.
Respondent filed its Answer to the Petition on January 9, 2025. (Doc. 17). By that
time, Petitioner was no longer incarcerated and was on mandatory supervised release.
As such, Respondent argued that if the relief Petitioner sought was release onto
mandatory supervised release, then the Petition was moot because that had already taken
place. Respondent alternatively argued that if Petitioner sought release from state
custody altogether, then his claim was procedurally defaulted for failing to present it
through one complete round of state court review. (Doc. 17, pgs. 7–10).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a writ of habeas corpus “shall not extend to a prisoner”
unless he is “in custody.” The “in custody” requirement is satisfied at the time of the
filing of the petition. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Therefore, an inmate that is
released while his petition for writ of habeas corpus is pending can still meet the “in
custody” requirement. His release does not necessarily moot his petition.
However, a petition must present a “case or controversy” to remain valid. See A.M.
v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787, 790 (7th Cir. 2004) (“The inability to review moot cases stems from
the requirement of Article III of the Constitution which limits the exercise of judicial
power to live cases or controversies.”). The Seventh Circuit directs a federal court to
“dismiss a case as moot when it cannot give the petitioner any effective relief.” Id. After
Case 3:24-cv-01109-DWD Document 21 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
a habeas petitioner has been released from custody some “concrete and continuing
injury” or “collateral consequences” must exist as a result of the detention being
challenged for the suit to present a continued case or controversy. Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7.
In other words, a released inmate’s petition is not necessarily moot “if the person suffers
sufficient collateral consequences from the sentence.” Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 640
(7th Cir. 2004).
Here, no evidence suggests, nor does Petitioner identify any such collateral
consequence. Petitioner has been released from IDOC custody, and it appears that he is
no longer on mandatory supervised release. Thus, his Petition seeking his release does
not present a live case or controversy and is therefore moot.
For the reasons set forth above, this habeas corpus action is DISMISSED without
prejudice as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in accordance
with this order.
Further, pursuant to Habeas Rule 11(a), the Court “must issue or deny a certificate
of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” To obtain a
certificate of appealability, a petitioner is required to make “a substantial showing of the
denial of the constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Peterson v. Douma, 751 F.3d 524,
528 (7th Cir. 2014). To do so, a petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could
debate whether […] the petition should have been resolved in a different manner[.]”
Peterson, 751 F.3d at 528. Here, for the reasons provided above, reasonable jurists would
not debate that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where the Petition fails to
Case 3:24-cv-01109-DWD Document 21 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
present a live case or controversy. Accordingly, the Court DENIES issuance a certificate
of appealability.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2025 	/s/ David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01109-DWD Document 21 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>