Michael Dunbar v. Raul Campos, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL LADRE DUNBAR, No. 22-55848 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00875-TWR-BGS v. MEMORANDUM* RAUL CAMPOS, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2023** Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Michael Ladre Dunbar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying as moot his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial detention under 28 U.S.C § 2241.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Dunbar’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. His motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We review de novo, see Zegarra-Gomez v. I.N.S., 314 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm. In his § 2241 petition and on appeal, Dunbar contends that his pretrial detention was unlawful. He further argues that the district court erred by waiting to rule on his § 2241 petition until after he was convicted in his underlying criminal case. We agree with the district court that Dunbar’s challenge to his pretrial detention became moot upon his conviction. See Barker v. Estelle, 913 F.2d 1433, 1440 (9th Cir. 1990) (appellant’s conviction rendered moot his challenge to a prior detention hearing). To the extent Dunbar seeks to raise other challenges to his prosecution and conviction, such arguments are premature. Dunbar is not precluded from raising these arguments on direct appeal from the judgment entered in his criminal case. Dunbar’s motions for a stay of his criminal proceeding in the district court and to lodge interview and body camera videos are denied. The motion to file without a certificate of service is granted and Dunbar is informed that the court has considered each of his filings. Dunbar’s motion requesting copies of filings is granted as to those filings he has not yet received. The Clerk will send Dunbar a copy of the docket and copies of his filings at Docket Entry No. 10 and 13. AFFIRMED. 2 22-55848