Knight v. Myers

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PHYLLIS M. KNIGHT, next friend of Cotrell
T. Knight;
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHAEL MYERS,
Respondent.
8:25CV483
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for initial review of a habeas corpus petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Phyllis M. Knight (“Petitioner”) as next friend and on behalf of
her son, Cotrell T. Knight (“Knight”), on July 31, 2025. Filing No. 1. The Court conducts
this initial review of the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts which allows the
Court to apply Rule 4 of those rules to a section 2241 action. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
Liberally construed, the petition alleges Knight was unlawfully “captured” on
October 18, 2024, by the Wichita Police Department in Kansas based on a “writ of
assistance” in which the Omaha Police Department (“OPD”) was named as the victim.
Filing No. 1 at 6. Sedgwick County, Kansas, officials then allegedly forged an
“extradition waiver” for Knight, and two OPD officers transported Knight to the Douglas
County Department of Corrections (“DCDC”) on October 30, 2024. Id. at 6, 11–12. The
petition contains mainly legal conclusions but appears to generally challenge Knight’s
initial arrest in Kansas, extradition to Nebraska, and pretrial detention. Only Petitioner
signed the petition as the “real party in interest.” Id. at 8 (capitalization altered).
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 1 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Petitioner references case number CR24-16856 in the County Court of Douglas
County, Nebraska, and case number CR24-5524 in the District Court of Douglas
County, Nebraska, in her petition and the attachments thereto as the decision being
challenged. See Id. at 2, 23. The Court takes judicial notice of the Petitioner’s state
court records which show that a complaint was filed on October 2, 2024, in CR24-16856
charging Petitioner with kidnapping, a Class IA felony, and a warrant was issued for his
arrest and served on Petitioner on October 30, 2024. Petitioner was appointed counsel,
a preliminary hearing was held on December 2, 2024, and the Douglas County Court
determined there was probable cause for Petitioner’s detention and bound the matter
over to the state district court under case number CR24-5524. On July 30, 2025, the
State was granted leave to file an amended information charging Knight with attempt of
a Class 3 or 3A Felony; Knight was arraigned; he entered a plea of no contest to the
amended charge; and the state district court sentenced him to 364 days in the DCDC
with credit for 283 days served.1 Even assuming Knight had to serve all 364 days, his
sentence would expire on or about October 19, 2025. The DCDC’s online public inmate
records indicate that Knight is no longer in custody there.2
Upon review, the Court concludes the petition must be dismissed because
Petitioner cannot maintain the present habeas action on her son’s behalf and because
any challenge to Knight’s pretrial detention is now moot.
1 The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records in State v. Cotrell T. Knight, CR24-16856,
County Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, and State v. Cotrell T. Knight, CR24-5524, District Court of
Douglas County, Nebraska. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may
take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records). Nebraska's judicial records may be retrieved
on-line through the JUSTICE site, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi. Relevant state court
records are attached to this Memorandum and Order.
2 See https://corrections.dccorr.com/inmate-locator (last viewed Oct. 29, 2025) (no search results for
Cotrell Knight).
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 2 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
An “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified
by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28
U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (“The petition must . . . be signed under penalty of perjury by the
petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner . . . .”). Petitioner may
pursue this habeas corpus action on behalf of Knight if she can establish standing to
proceed as his “next friend.” To establish standing as a “next friend,” the party
purporting to act for the detained individual must show (at least) the following two
things:
1. The real party cannot access the courts, the real party is mentally
incompetent, or the real party has some other disability, and the real party
cannot therefore bring the action himself.
2. The party purporting to act for the real party is dedicated to the best
interests of the real party.
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). “The burden is on the ‘next friend’
clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the
court.” Id. at 164.
Petitioner has not established that the factors for “next friend” standing exist in
the present case. Knight is not a minor and nothing Petitioner alleges in the petition
suggests Knight is incapable of pursuing federal habeas relief on his own behalf if he
wishes to do so.
Lack of standing aside, Knight’s state court records show that the petition was
filed after he was convicted and he is now no longer in custody. As the Eighth Circuit
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 3 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
Court of Appeals has explained,
“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the
federal courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.” Haden v.
Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir.2000); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.
1. “When, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a case
‘lose their life because of the passage of time or a change in
circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer grant effective relief,’
the case is considered moot.” Id. (quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch.
Activities Ass’n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir.1994) (alteration in original));
see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43
(1998) (stating an action becomes moot where it “no longer present[s] a
case or controversy under Article III”). If an issue is moot in the Article III
sense, we have no discretion and must dismiss the action for lack of
jurisdiction. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 n.7, 89 S.Ct.
1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969).
Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723–24 (8th Cir. 2005).
Because Knight was convicted prior to the petition being filed, any challenge to
his pretrial detention is moot. See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir.
2015) (“Once Mr. Jackson was convicted, the claims concerning his pre-trial
confinement became moot.”); Williams v. Slater, 317 Fed.Appx. 723, 724–25 (10th Cir.
2008); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228–29 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[C]laims for federal
habeas relief for pretrial issues are mooted by Yohey’s subsequent conviction.”); Thorne
v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for Men, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 1973);
Medina v. California, 429 F.2d 1392, 1393 (9th Cir. 1970). Moreover, the case is moot
because Knight was released from the DCDC and is no longer in custody pursuant to
the criminal action challenged in the petition. See McGill v. Mukasey, No. 8:08CV345,
2009 WL 277556, at *1 (D. Neb. Feb. 5, 2009) (finding habeas petition moot where
petitioner was released from custody, there was no continuing injury traceable to the
respondents, and court could not issue any decision which would further the relief
sought by the petitioner).
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 4 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

5
Finally, because “the detention complained of arises from process issued by a
state court,” Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253;
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); see also Hoffler v. Bezio, 726 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2013)
(collecting cases of courts that ruled a state prisoner who petitions for habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must obtain a certificate of appealability). The standards for
certificates (1) where the district court reaches the merits or (2) where the district court
rules on procedural grounds are set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85
(2000). The Court has applied the appropriate standard and determined that Petitioner
is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Filing No. 1, is dismissed without
prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued.
2. The Court will enter judgment by separate document.
Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 5 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

Filed in Douglas District Court
*** EFILED ***
Case Number: D01CR240005524
Transaction ID: 0023629892
Filing Date: 07/30/2025 03:37:27 PM CDT
Last visited Oct. 29, 2025
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 6 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

I, the undersigned, 	certify that on July 31, 2025 	, 	I served a copy of 	the foregoing
document 	upon 	the following persons at 	the addresses given, by mailing 	by United States Mail,
postage 	prepaid, or via E-mail:
Terri 	L 	Crawford 	Amy G Jacobsen
tcrawford@byndonlaw.com 	amy.jacobsen@douglascounty-ne.gov
Date: 	July 31, 2025 	BY THE COURT: 	_____________________________________
CLERK
Last visited Oct. 29, 2025
8:25-cv-00483-JFB-PRSE Doc # 3 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 7 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>