BEARD v. FISHER
ORDER denying 19 Motion to Amend/Correct. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands on 12/30/2013. (bcl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
KELVIN DEWAYNE BEARD,
SCOTT FISHER, Warden,
CASE NO.: 1:13-cv-32 (WLS)
Petitioner Kelvin Dewayne Beard filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking to vacate a 1998 conviction in the Superior Court of
Decatur County, Georgia. Although Beard is no longer in custody on his 1998
conviction, he apparently seeks to have that conviction vacated because it was used to
enhance his guideline range on a federal sentence he is serving from the United States
District Court from the Southern District of Ohio. On July 9, 2013, the Court dismissed
Beard’s petition on a preliminary review. Finding that Beard could not attack his state
sentence under § 2254 because he was no longer “in custody” on that conviction, the
Court construed his petition as a motion to vacate under § 2255. The Court then held
that Beard was also not entitled to relief under § 2255 because he had previously filed a
motion to vacate and because the Court did not have jurisdiction.
A few days after the Court dismissed his petition, Beard filed the pending
“Motion and Response to the State of Georgia’s Rebuttal to Petitioner[‘s] Writ of Habeas
Corpus under U.S.C. 2254.” (Doc. 19.) This motion appears to be a reply brief to the
State of Georgia’s response in opposition to Beard’s petition. Because this filing was
styled as a “motion,” it was marked for adjudication. Although the precise basis for the
motion is unclear, the Court considers several possibilities.
First, to the extent Beard’s motion seeks to amend his petition, it must be denied.
The Court dismissed the petition because it was a successive petition and because the
Court lacked jurisdiction. An amendment to the petition would be futile. No
amendment will change the fact that this Court did not impose Beard’s sentence and
therefore does not have jurisdiction to vacate his sentence. See § 2255(a) (permitting
federal prisoner to move “the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence”).
Second, to the extent Beard’s motion is a motion for a writ of coram nobis, it
must also be denied. As the Court previously held, Beard cannot attack his state
convictions in federal court through a petition for a writ of coram nobis. Young v.
Warden, FFC Coleman, 508 F. App’x 918, 920 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Our law is clear . . . that
coram nobis in federal court is not a vehicle for challenging [state court convictions].”).
Additionally, Beard is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis for his federal conviction
because he had other avenues for relief—namely, a motion to vacate under § 2255.
Alikhani v. United States, 200 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2000).
His motion (Doc. 19) is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this _
30th _ day of December, 2013.
_ /s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?