Opinion
CIVIL NO: 4:17-CV-00505
07-24-2018
LESLIE E. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. UNION COUNTY COURT, Respondent.
(Judge Mannion)
( ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction.
In this petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the pro se petitioner Leslie E. Thomas ("Mr. Thomas") asks the Court to vacate and expunge his 1995 convictions for indecent assault, corruption of a minor, and endangering the welfare of a child. Mr. Thomas alleges that he was wrongly convicted of these crimes because of errors committed by his attorney and the court regarding witness testimony and jury instructions. Before the Court is the motion of the respondent, the Union County Court of Common Pleas ("Union County Court"), asking the Court to dismiss Mr. Thomas's petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a writ of error coram nobis to a petitioner seeking to vacate a state court conviction, we recommend that the Court dismiss Mr. Thomas's petition.
II. Background and Procedural History.
Mr. Thomas, proceeding pro se, petitioned this Court for a writ of error coram nobis on March 23, 2017, alleging that he was convicted of indecent assault, corruption of a minor, and endangering the welfare of a child despite serious errors by defense counsel and the court. Doc. 1. We ordered Mr. Thomas to file an amended petition clarifying whom he intended to name as the respondent. Doc. 3. Mr. Thomas filed an amended petition on April 11, 2017, naming "Union County Court" as the respondent and again alleging errors at his trial. Doc. 4. Mr. Thomas seeks that his convictions be set aside; that his record be expunged; and that all records of his arrest, indictment, and conviction be sealed. Doc. 4 at 1-5.
Union County Court filed the instant motion to dismiss and a supporting brief on September 12, 2017, asking that the Court dismiss Mr. Thomas's petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docs. 14, 15. Mr. Thomas responded with an initial brief in opposition (doc. 7) and then an excess of separate filings supplementing his brief (see, e.g., docs. 18 - 25, doc. 28). Union County Court filed a motion on February 13, 2018, to stay discovery pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss. Doc. 26. We granted Union County Court's motion to stay on May 4, 2018, and also ordered Mr. Thomas to file one comprehensive brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Doc. 37. Mr. Thomas has now filed his comprehensive brief in response. See doc. 38. The issues, therefore, have been fully briefed and the motion to dismiss is ripe for decision.
III. Discussion.
Mr. Thomas has petitioned this Court for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). We recommend that Mr. Thomas's petition be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief that he seeks.
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). A United States District Court may issue a writ of error coram nobis only to correct "errors of the most fundamental character." See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954) (citing United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 (1914)). The writ of error coram nobis "is an extraordinary remedy and a court's jurisdiction to grant relief is of limited scope." Phillips v. Noward, 614 F. App'x 583, 586 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2000)). Indeed, Congress has abolished the writ in civil cases, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(e), and the traditional view is that coram nobis relief is only available in criminal cases "from the court that issued the criminal judgment." Phillips, 614 F. App'x at 586 (citing Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982), and Lowery v. McCaughtry, 954 F.2d 422, 423 (7th Cir. 1992)). A petitioner traditionally invokes the writ of error coram nobis "to attack convictions with continuing consequences when the petitioner is no longer in custody." Id. A federal district court in the Third Circuit, however, "lacks 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 F. App'x 110, 111 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussing Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003)).
In Obado v. New Jersey, the Third Circuit considered whether to certify the appeal of a habeas corpus petitioner who had been convicted of drug possession in state court. Obado, 328 F.3d at 716-17. The Court of Appeals construed the habeas corpus petition as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis because the petitioner had filed after his release from custody. Id. at 717. The Court of Appeals declined to certify the petitioner's appeal, reasoning that "coram nobis is not available in a federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment." Id. at 718. The Court of Appeals further explained that "to qualify for relief under coram nobis after a sentence has been served, the petitioner must show exceptional circumstances and continuing collateral disadvantages." Id. at 718 (citing United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1059 (3d Cir. 1989)).
In the matter of Thompson, the Court of Appeals applied its earlier reasoning in Obado to its consideration of another coram nobis petition. The petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, filed his coram nobis petition directly with the Third Circuit after he was convicted in federal court and removed from the United States. In Re Thompson, 449 F. App'x at 110-11. The Court of Appeals declined to issue the writ, reasoning that "the 'usages and principles of law' send an applicant seeking coram nobis to the court that issued the judgment," rather than a reviewing court. See id. at 111 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). The Court of Appeals explained that the writ of error coram nobis "arose as a device to extend the period in which the judge who rendered a decision could reexamine it." Id. (citing Lowery, 954 F.2d at 423). The Court of Appeals also cited to Sinclair, which reasoned that a "writ of error coram nobis can only issue to aid the jurisdiction of the court in which the conviction was had." Id. (citing Sinclair, 679 F.2d at 514). The Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked original jurisdiction and dismissed Thompson's petition. Id.
Thus, in order to be eligible for a writ of error coram nobis following completion of a criminal sentence, a petitioner must have been released from custody, must ask for relief in the court that convicted him or her, and must demonstrate both exceptional circumstances and continuing collateral disadvantages which justify review. See Phillips, 614 F. App'x at 586; In Re Thompson, 449 F. App'x at 111; Obado, 328 F.3d at 718; Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512. Whether the petitioner has asked for relief in the court that convicted him or her is an important threshold question, for a federal court that played no role in the petitioner's conviction is without authority to issue a writ of error coram nobis. Issuance of the writ by a procedurally extraneous court would neither aid that court's jurisdiction, which it would have originally lacked over the petitioner's criminal case, nor be agreeable to the usages and principles of law, which have traditionally restricted the writ to the court that rendered judgment. The All Writs Act, therefore, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court to grant the writ of error coram nobis when a petitioner seeks relief from a state court criminal conviction.
Here, Mr. Thomas has not met a key prerequisite for coram nobis review: he has not petitioned for relief in the court that originally convicted him, but has instead filed his petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania naming Union County Court as the respondent. As the Middle District of Pennsylvania played no apparent role in the state court convictions that Mr. Thomas disputes, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition.
Mr. Thomas nonetheless argues that we should consider his petition because "the Union County Court lost Jurisdiction of the Trial." Doc. 38 at 1. In support of that argument, Mr. Thomas has provided the Court with excerpts of the transcript of his trial which indicate, he alleges, that a witness for the prosecution committed perjury. See id. at 1-2; doc. 38-1 at 2. Mr. Thomas further argues that the lapse of time since his conviction in 1995 should not prevent this Court from granting him relief, as a South Carolina trial court has granted a writ of error coram nobis 70 years after sentencing a young man to death and carrying out his execution. See doc.38 at 1; doc. 38-1 at 1. None of Mr. Thomas's arguments, however, address the fundamental obstacle that this Court would be acting without subject matter jurisdiction in considering Mr. Thomas's petition on the merits. Mr. Thomas's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, therefore, should be dismissed.
Mr. Thomas's remaining arguments, to the extent that we can discern them, are unavailing. For instance, he obliquely references the "Kids for cash Scandal" and duplicates witness testimony from his trial in state court. Doc. 38 at 2-3. He also argues that the victim's testimony about watching lurid VHS tapes at his direction was inconsistent because Mr. Thomas "had x-rated for free from a SATELLITE DISH." Id. at 4. --------
IV. Recommendation.
In view of the foregoing discussion, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Union County Court's motion to dismiss (doc. 14) be GRANTED and that Mr. Thomas's petition for a writ of error coram nobis be DISMISSED. The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
/S/ Susan E . Schwab
Susan E. Schwab
United States Magistrate Judge Submitted July 24, 2018.