Dunigan v. Beard
Filing
6
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/21/16: The Clerk of the Court is directed to appoint a district judge to this action. Application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. Motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN W. DUNIGAN,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-0048 KJN P
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER & FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
JEFFREY BEARD,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of error coram
nobis, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford
20
the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See
21
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
22
23
24
Petitioner challenges his Sacramento County conviction for the first degree murder of
Gary Viers.
“Coram nobis is an extraordinary writ that usually is available only to petitioners who
25
have fully served their sentences” and may issue under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
26
United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2002). The writ may be issued by a
27
federal court only with respect to a federal criminal sentence. See Yasui v. United States, 772
28
F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The writ of error coram nobis fills a void in the availability of
1
1
post-conviction remedies in federal criminal cases.”); Hensley v. Municipal Court, 453 F.2d
2
1252, 1252 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that, even though habeas jurisdiction was lacking, a
3
petition could not be treated as “one seeking coram nobis because [petitioner] seeks to challenge a
4
state court proceeding in federal court” and “[c]oram nobis lies only to challenge errors occurring
5
in the same court”), rev'd on other grounds by 411 U.S. 345 (1973).
6
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds that petitioner cannot bring a
7
petition for writ of error coram nobis to challenge his state court conviction. Accordingly, the
8
petition is construed as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
9
Court records indicate that petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition in this court
10
challenging his Sacramento County conviction for the first degree murder of Gary Viers, i.e., CIV
11
S 11-cv-961 MCE EFB P. On August 5, 2013, CIV S 11-cv-961 MCE EFB P was denied on the
12
merits and judgment was entered.
13
Rule 9 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that before presenting
14
a second or successive petition, the petitioner must obtain an order from the appropriate court of
15
appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition as required by 28 U.S.C. §
16
2244(b)(3) and (4). In the instant case, petitioner has not demonstrated that he has obtained an
17
order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing him to proceed with this second or
18
successive petition. For this reason, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed.
19
Petitioner has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Because the
20
undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, the motion for appointment of counsel is
21
denied.
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
23
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to appoint a district judge to this action;
24
2. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted;
25
3. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied; and
26
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.
27
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
28
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
2
1
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
2
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
3
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections,
4
he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to
5
which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the
6
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
7
2253(c)(3). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
8
waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
9
1991).
10
Dated: January 21, 2016
11
12
13
14
15
Dun58.dis
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?