Hughes v. Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DARREN TRAMELL HUGHES, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs .
ED GONZALEZ,
Respondent.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-02977
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Darren Trammel Hughes filed this petition for habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his conviction in Harris County cause number 985661. 	See
Doc. No. 1. 	The intermediate court of appeal noted that Hughes "was convicted of the
offense of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to confinement for three years on January
25, 2005." Hughes v. State, No. 14-14-00864-CR (Tex. App.- 	Houston [14th Dist.] Apr.
9, 2015, no pet).
Public court records reflect that Hughes filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas
corpus after his sentence was discharged. 	In particular, the Action Taken sheet from his
recent state application for a writ of habeas corpus reflects that the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals 	dismissed 	his 	state 	application 	because 	Hughes 	is 	not 	in 	custody 	on this
conviction. See Exparte Hughes , WR-76,331-17, Tr. Ct. No. 985661-C (Tex. Crim. App.
Dec. 11, 2024). Because Hughes is not in custody for cause number 985661 , this petition
must be dismissed without prejudice.
1/ 4
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02977 Document 5 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

I. 	DISCUSSION
United States district courts may only entertain petitions for habeas corpus relief
from persons who are "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C . § 224l(c)(3) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has clarified
that, for jurisdiction to attach, a habeas corpus petitioner must be "in custody" at the time
hi s petition is filed. 	Cara/as v. La Vallee, 391 U.S. 234,238 (1968). A petitioner is not "in
custody" for purposes of the federal habeas corpus statutes once his sentence has fully
expired. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989).
As noted above, public court records show that Hughes has fully discharged his
sentence for sexual assault in Harris County cause number 677196. 	Therefore, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to determine the legality of that conviction under the federal habeas
corpus statutes. 	See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492-93; Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v.
Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001); see also Hendrix v. Lynaugh, 888 F.2d 336, 337 (5th Cir.
1989) ("Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain section 2254 actions if,
at the time the petition is filed, the petitioner is not 'in custody ' under the conviction or
sentence which the petition attacks." (citations omitted)). 	Accordingly, the Court must
dismiss this petition because Hughes is not " in custody" for this conviction under the
habeas statutes.
2 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-02977 Document 5 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

II. 	CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to issue
or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order that is adverse to the
petitioner. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 	A certificate of appealability will not issue unless the
petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253( c)(2), which requires a petitioner to demonstrate "that reasonable jurists would find
the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 	Tennard,
542 U .S. at 282 (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 484 (2000)). 	Under the
controlling standard, this requires a petitioner to show "that reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were 'a dequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further."' Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,336 (2003). Where denial of relief is based
on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show not only that "jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,"
but also that they "would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
A district court may deny a certificate of appealability, sua sponte, without requiring
further briefing or argument. See Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000).
For reasons set forth above, this court concludes that jurists of reason would not debate
whether the ruling in this case was correct. 	Therefore, a certificate of appealability will
not issue.
3 / 4
Case 4:26-cv-02977 Document 5 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

Ill. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
4 / 4
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
3. 	A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
The Clerk will provide copies of this order to the parties.
--t'----
SIGNED on this 	'<--- ~ 	day of June 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-02977 Document 5 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4