Salau v. Francis, 1:15-cv-01248

Petitioner Ahmed Olasunkanmi Salau filed two identical amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest (Mar 31, 2014) and violations of his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights after arraignment (Apr 1, 2014).
Petitioner asserted he posted bond Apr 12, 2014 but remained effectively detained for nearly six months, losing scholarship/internship opportunities and suffering loss of evidence/witness availability.
Petitioner sought relief including unconditional release from prosecution; he also had related § 2241 proceedings in another docket that were dismissed and transferred to this Bluefield action.
Court staff learned the underlying state charges (State v. Salau, No. 14-F-310) were dismissed without prejudice and petitioner was released from home confinement on or about Dec 17, 2014.
Magistrate Judge recommended the § 2241 petition be denied as moot because petitioner was no longer in custody on the challenged charges and the court could no longer provide habeas relief.
The recommendation advised that objections be filed within the statutory period and that failure to object would waive de novo review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2241 petition remains justiciable after petitioner’s release and dismissal of charges	Salau: custody and speedy-trial violations continue to confer habeas jurisdiction and warrant relief (release/unconditional relief)	Respondent: petitioner was released and charges dismissed, so court cannot grant effective relief; petition is moot	Petition is moot; recommend denial/dismissal of § 2241 petition
Whether petitioner’s alleged pretrial deprivation (delay, lost evidence, moved witnesses) supports federal habeas relief	Salau: delay and state denials of speedy trial violated 5th and 6th Amendments, causing concrete harm warranting relief	Respondent: any alleged injury is tied to the now-dismissed prosecution and release; no ongoing custody to remedy	Court did not reach merits because mootness precluded habeas jurisdiction
Procedural: Whether Court should permit proceeding in forma pauperis	Salau: sought to proceed without prepayment of fees	Respondent: mootness undercuts need to resolve IFP request	IFP application denied as moot along with petition
Whether objections deadline and waiver rule apply	N/A	N/A	Parties warned that failure to file timely objections waives de novo and appellate review

Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (Article III requires an ongoing case or controversy at all stages of review)
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (standing and mootness principles under Article III)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (habeas relief is moot when petitioner is released and no collateral consequences remain)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural rule that failure to file timely objections waives right to de novo district-court review)