stating a § 2254 habeas petitioner whose sentence has expired is no longer “in custody” for that conviction, even if it was used to enhance his current sentence
How later courts described this case
- stating a § 2254 habeas petitioner whose sentence has expired is no longer “in custody” for that conviction, even if it was used to enhance his current sentence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 7, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 08-2255
v. (D. New Mexico)
(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00860-JCH-DJS)
MIKE HEREDIA, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Proceeding pro se, Marvin Brown seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition he
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no
appeal may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 petition unless the
petitioner first obtains a COA). In his petition, filed on August 30, 2007, Brown
attacks the validity of a New Mexico sentence imposed on August 22, 1994, for a
parole violation. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who ordered
Respondent to file an answer. Respondent filed both an answer and a motion to
dismiss Brown’s petition, arguing it was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)
(setting forth a one-year statute of limitations for § 2254 applications); Hoggro v.
Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding prisoners whose state
convictions became final prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act have one year from April 24, 1996 to file a federal habeas
petition). In the alternative, Respondent argued Brown could not satisfy the “in
custody” requirement of § 2254(a) because his conviction and sentence was fully
expired at the time he filed his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Maleng v. Cook,
490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989) (stating a § 2254 habeas petitioner whose sentence has
expired is no longer “in custody” for that conviction, even if it was used to
enhance his current sentence). The district court adopted the magistrate’s
recommendation that Brown’s petition be dismissed as untimely.
After reviewing the record, including the attachments to the answer
Respondent filed with the district court, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction
to consider Brown’s § 2254 application. Because the sentence he challenges has
expired, Brown is no longer “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492.
Accordingly, we remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its
judgment and dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-2-