Mark Christensen v. John Kroger

MEMORANDUM

Mark Francis Christensen filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Oregon state court, challenging his Oregon coercion and harassment convictions. The district court denied the petition on the merits. Because we conclude that § 2254 does not provide a remedy in this case, we affirm without reaching the merits.

A court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for habeas corpus only when the petitioner is “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; see also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 , 109 S.Ct. 1923 , 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (per curiam). If a petitioner is no longer in custody on the challenged conviction, but the expired conviction was a basis for a sentence he is currently serving, the court may have jurisdiction if the habeas petition is ambiguous as to which offense is being challenged. See id. at 493-94 , 109 S.Ct. 1923 . Christensen completed his Oregon sentences before filing his petition, and the convictions therefore had expired. He contends that although the convictions are no longer subject to attack in their own right, he nonetheless satisfies the “in custody” requirement because the allegedly unconstitutional Oregon convictions were a…