Opinion
1:24-CV-46-RAL
04-10-2024
JAMES ROBERT TICE, Petitioner v. HARRY E. WILSON, Respondent
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
Pending before the Court is a document styled a “Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Coram Nobis & Coram Vobis And Vacatur, Writ of Error, Petition Under All Writs Act” (“Coram Nobis Petition”) filed by Petitioner James Robert Tice. ECF Nos. 1-1 through 1-3. For the reasons set forth below, it is respectfully recommended that the Coram Nobis Petition be dismissed prior to service for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent one is required, it is further recommended that the Court deny a Certificate of Appealability.
II. Report
A. Background
On February 20, 2024, Petitioner, a former state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 1] and the aforementioned Coram Nobis Petition. ECF Nos. 1-1 through 1-3. Because Petitioner is challenging his conviction at several state court docket numbers including 772 of 1994, 3206 and 3207 of 1998, 27437 of 1998, 230 of 1992, and MJ-06204-TR-0001426-2016, the Clerk docketed his filing as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On February 26, 2024, Petitioner filed a letter clarifying that “[his] petition is not intended to be treated as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition but rather as a Coram Nobis petition, which seeks to challenge certain aspects of [his] conviction based on errors of fact, or law, that were not known or known but not acted on for false reasons to the court at the time of the original judgment.” ECF No. 2. Petitioner emphasizes that this case should be treated as a coram nobis petition rather than a § 2254 petition. Id.
B. Standard for preservice dismissal
A district court has the inherent power to sua sponte consider its own subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Grp. Against Smog and Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango, Inc., 810 F.3d 116, 122 n.6 (3d Cir. 2016) (explaining that “an objection to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time [and] a court may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte”'). See also Palmer v. Barram, 184 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The question of subject matter jurisdiction . . . is one that may be raised sua sponte by the court, as it was here, and our jurisdiction to address and decide it is inherent.”). Pursuant to this inherent power, a court must dismiss any claims over which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Even apart from considerations of subject matter jurisdiction, the court also has an inherent power to dismiss improper pleadings prior to service. See, e.g., Carroll v. Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, 2008 WL 426272, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2008). This power extends to habeas petitions and other similar filings. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In the United States District Courts (stating that federal district courts have a pre-service duty to screen and summarily dismiss habeas petitions that plainly show the petitioner is not entitled to relief); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”).
C. Analysis
The writ of error coram nobis, an obscure remedy in federal court, is authorized by the All Writs Act, which provides that “all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Critically, however, “coram nobis is not available in a federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment.” Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003). Rather, “[t]his relief is only available in federal court for those individuals convicted in federal court.” Id. Accordingly, federal district courts “lack[] jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of error coram nobis where a petitioner seeks to vacate a state court conviction.” In re Thompson, 449 Fed.Appx. 110, 111 (3d Cir. 2011).
Because Petitioner is challenging state court convictions, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his proposed coram nobis petition. To the extent that Petitioner seeks coram nobis relief related to those convictions, “[he] can seek coram nobis relief only in state court.” Obado, 328 F.3d at 718. Specifically, his coram nobis petition, or its equivalent in state court practice, would have to be “filed and litigated in the state court that issued the judgment.” Villeda v. U.S., 2014 WL 183900, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2014). Accordingly, his petition should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Said dismissal should be without prejudice to his right to refile his request for coram nobis relief in the appropriate state court.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Coram Nobis Petition be dismissed prior to service for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent one is required, it is further recommended that the Court deny a Certificate of Appealability.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).