IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

PHOEBE DACHA,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV517

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, a former Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition pursuant to

(“§ 2254 Petition,” ECF No. 1) challenging her sentence in the Circuit Court for the County of Chesterfield (“Circuit Court”). For the reasons set forth below, the § 2254 Petition will be DISMISSED because Petitioner was not in custody at the time she filed the § 2254 Petition. On December 18, 2019, Petitioner was convicted of violating a protective order.1 (ECF No. 1, at 1.) On December 19, 2019, Petitioner was sentenced to one hour of detention. (Id.) To qualify for relief under

, a petitioner must be in custody. See

(a). The Supreme Court has “interpreted the statutory language as requiring that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook,

, 490–91 (1989) (citing Carafas v. LaVallee,

(1968)). The in-custody requirement is jurisdictional. Id. at 490. Because Petitioner was not in custody pursuant to her December 2019 conviction at the time she filed the present § 2254

1 Petitioner does not identify the nature of her conviction of the face of the § 2254 Petition. However, Petitioner states that she “was convicted based on a misapplication of Code § 18.2-60.4 without adequate consideration of intent.” (ECF No. 1, at 8.) That statute criminalizes violating a protective order. See Va. Code § 18.2-60.4 (West 2025). Petition, the action will be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability will be DENIED. An appropriate Final Order shall issue.

/s/ Roderick C. Young Date: September 29, 2025 United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia