Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Obado v. State of New Jersey

May 09, 2003

DENNIS OBADO, APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY



On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civ. No. 02-cv-2646) District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

Before: BECKER,*fn1 Chief Judge, Aldisert and Weis, Circuit Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

As amended May 16, 2003.

DENNIS OBADO, APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civ. No. 02-cv-2646) District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

Before: BECKER,*fn1 Chief Judge, Aldisert and Weis, Circuit Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) February 6, 2003

OPINION OF THE COURT

Appellant Dennis Obado petitions this Court for the issuance of a certificate of appealability (COA) from the District Court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition for want of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. For the following reasons, we will decline to issue a COA.

I.

In 1990, Dennis Obado was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, for possession of CDS *fn2 with the intent to distribute on or near a school zone. Obado was sentenced to 364 days imprisonment and 4 years probation. On May 31, 2002, Obado filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, he conceded he was no longer in confinement. Upon an order to show cause, Obado argued that, because he was still paying restitution as a term of his probation, he was "in custody" for the purposes of § 2254(a).

The District Court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that Obado was no longer "in custody" within the meaning of the habeas statute when he filed his section 2254 petition, and that neither the possibility of collateral consequences nor existence of an outstanding fine or restitution are themselves sufficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.