state prisoner, "[wjhile the state court judgment is neither reversed nor vacated, the prisoner is released and the state court judgment authoritatively declared void." Rimmer v. Fayetteville Police Department, 567 F.2d 273, 277 (4th Cir.1977). Again, it is clear that habeas may favorably terminate a criminal proceeding. See supra note 27 and accompanying text. 30 . It is important to note that allowing pardons or expungement orders to serve as favorable terminations has no bearing on the finality of the criminal proceedings. Rather, giving certain pardons or expungement orders this effect operates at most to extend the time during which a person may be exposed to liability for malicious prosecution. 31 . See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254, 2255; Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). It is well settled that such "custody” is not
holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed holding that a petitioner should be permitted to seek habeas review in state court even if there were doubt that the states substantive law would permit a habeas petition holding that active jurisdiction arose when the petitioner was detained for purposes of habeas corpus when the petition was filed holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits