Pacheco-Medina

Pacheco-Medina v. Oregon

Good Law
66 F. App'x 104
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 21, 2003No. 02-35474California913 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Anacleto Pacheco-Medina filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, seeking relief from his Oregon state court conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. The district court denied relief because Pacheco-Medina was not in custody at the time he filed his petition, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated herein except as necessary.

I

Pacheco-Medina’s suspended sentence completely expired in January 2000, and he filed his habeas petition in federal district court in November 2001. Accordingly, Pacheco-Medina was not in custody under the conviction and sentence he now seeks to attack. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 , 109 S.Ct. 1923 , 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody “under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.”). The fact he is now subject to an INS deportation order, and that action was a direct result of the state court conviction, does not help to satisfy section 2254’s custody requirement. INS deportation proceedings are a collateral consequence of state court convictions. See Fruchtman…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.