Hall v. United States of America
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 11/21/2014. (c/m 11/21/14 ca2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHRISTOPHER A. HALL
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
Petitioner
v
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
Civil Action No. RWT-13-3143
Criminal Action No. AW-04-559
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending is self-represented Petitioner Christopher A. Hall’s Petition for a Writ of Audita
Querela. Petitioner requests that his conviction and sentence be vacated based on alleged trial
court error and prosecutorial misconduct.
BACKGROUND
On January 30, 2007, after a jury trial, Hall was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, use of a communications facility in
furtherance of a narcotics offense, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
ECF No. 416. On April 13, 2007, Hall was sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment and five
years of supervised release. ECF No. 456. On March 23, 2009, Hall filed a Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his conviction and
sentence. ECF No. 513. The Court denied the Motion on July 29, 2010. ECF No. 560.
DISCUSSION
At common law, the writ of audita querela “permitted a judgment debtor to obtain
equitable relief from a legal judgment because of some defense or discharge arising after the
entry of judgment.” United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001)
(per curiam).
Audita querela was abolished in civil cases by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, but “potentially survives in the criminal context” under the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d at 1079.
The All Writs Act 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). “[It] is a residual source of authority to issue writs
that are not otherwise covered by statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the particular
issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.” Pennsylvania
Bureau of Correction v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). Thus, a “writ of audita
querela is not available to a petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate
sentence under § 2255.” In re Moore, 487 Fed. App'x 109, 109 (4th Cir. 2012).
Petitioner’s prior lack of success in obtaining collateral relief under § 2255 does not alter
this analysis. See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2007) (“the statutory
limits on second or successive habeas petitions do not create a ‘gap’ in the post-conviction
landscape that can be filled with the common law writs”). Accordingly, the Petition will be
denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no grounds to grant the Writ. This Petition
will be denied by separate Order to follow.
November 21, 2014
Date
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?