Thomas v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners Pro Se Motion for Coram Nobis Relief is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/14/2012. (RAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WINFRED LAMAR THOMAS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 4:12CV1619 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s “Pro Se Motion for Coram Nobis
Relief.” Petitioner, a federal prisoner, seeks to modify the sentence imposed in United
States v. Thomas, 4:03CR479 DJS (E.D. Mo.). Petitioner previously filed a motion
to vacate, modify or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging this same
sentence; the motion was denied on the merits. See Thomas v. United States,
4:06CV1133 DJS (E.D. Mo.).
A petitioner is not permitted to circumvent the AEDPA’s second or successive
petition requirements simply by labeling the petition or motion as something other
than what it is. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) (pleading labeled as
a Rule 60(b) motion that is in substance a habeas petition “should be treated
accordingly”). “Call it a motion for a new trial, arrest of judgment, mandamus,
prohibition, coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, certiorari, capias, habeas
corpus, ejectment, quare impedit, bill of review, writ of error, or an application for a
Get-Out-of-Jail Card; the name makes no difference. It is substance that controls.”
Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004). In this instance, the relief
petitioner seeks is available only through a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h):
A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by
a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain-(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the
evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the
movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
Absent certification from the United States Court of Appeals, this Court lacks
authority to grant the requested relief. As a result, the motion will be dismissed. See
28 U.S.C. § 2255, Rule 4.
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether this action is successive under § 2255(h). Thus, the Court will not
issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s “Pro Se Motion for Coram Nobis
Relief” is DISMISSED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 14th day of September, 2012.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?