Hilton

MEMORANDUM *

Joe Hilton appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo. See McNeil v. Middleton, 344 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir.2003). Because we find that Hilton was not in custody at the time he originally filed his habeas petition, we affirm.

Petitions for habeas corpus can be brought only by persons who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 , 109 S.Ct. 1923 , 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). Once a defendant is discharged from probation or parole, he is no longer “in custody.” See Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1999). Hilton was discharged from probation on February 20, 2000, roughly three months before he filed his original petition for habeas corpus with the district court. Hilton was therefore not in custody at the time he filed his habeas petition and the district court was correct in finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Hilton’s petition.

Despite Hilton’s contentions, he was not in “constructive custody” because the State of…