Arambula v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:2011cv00287 - Document 10 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 11/9/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division TONY ARAMBULA, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:11CV287 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Tony Arambula, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. alia, Respondent has moved to dismiss on the grounds that, inter Arambula cannot satisfy the in custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)("[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of treaties of the United States."). the Constitution or laws Arambula has not responded. or The matter is ripe for disposition. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach ("Circuit Court"), Arambula was convicted register as a sex offender. November months 30, of 2007, the imprisonment three counts of failure to Pursuant to the final order entered on Circuit on of each Court sentenced count. Arambula Thereafter, to 12 Arambula unsuccessfully pursued appeals and petitions for writs of habeas corpus with respect to the above convictions. On June 2, 2010, Arambula Department of Corrections. was released As of that date, by the Virginia Arambula had fully served his sentences with respect to three convictions for failure to register as a sex offender. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Ex. B (Brown Aff.) SI 4, Arambula v. Dir. Dep't Corr., No. 100845 (Va. filed Aug. II. 19, 2010). THE "IN CUSTODY" REQUIREMENT To qualify for relief under 28 U.S.C. must be in custody. has "interpreted See 28 U.S.C. the statutory § 2254, § 2254(a). language as a petitioner The Supreme Court requiring that the habeas petitioner be *in custody' under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed." 490 U.S. 234, 238 488, 490-91 (1968)). Id. at 490. (1989) (citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. The in-custody requirement is jurisdictional. Because Arambula was not in custody at the time he filed the present § 2254 Petition, No. Malenq v. Cook, the Motion to Dismiss (Docket 6) will be GRANTED and the action will be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The Court will deny a certificate of appealability.1 1 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Arambula and counsel of record. An appropriate Order shall issue. IjlL ££JL Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Date: AJbiMAMx^ lc(/ Richmond, Virginia resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ^adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle. 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). For the reasons stated above, Arambula has not satisfied this standard.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
