Daniele v. United States of America
Filing
48
OPINION, MEMORANDUM and ORDER [See Full Order] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motions for Error Coram Nobis [Doc. No. 43 , 44 , and 47 are DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall not file any other motions for the relief sought in these motions. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/17/20. (EAB)
Case: 4:14-cv-02100-HEA Doc. #: 48 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 409
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY DANIELE,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
)
) Case No: 4:14CV2100 HEA
)
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motions for Error Coram
Nobis [Doc. No.’s 43, 44, and 47]. The United States has responded to Document
43. For the reasons explained below, the “Motions” are denied.
On March 27, 2019, the Court denied Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition
for Writ of Coram Nobis. A motion to reconsider was also denied.
Petitioner appealed the denial. On January 21, 2020, the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals summarily affirmed this Court’s Judgment.
Petitioner thereafter filed these Motions. The motions raise identical issues
and issues that could have been raised in the original Writ but were not.
Discussion
As the Court discussed in its original denial of the writ, “[a] writ of coram
nobis is an ‘extraordinary remedy,’ and courts should grant the writ ‘only under
circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice’ and to correct errors ‘of
Case: 4:14-cv-02100-HEA Doc. #: 48 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 410
the most fundamental character.’” United States v. Camacho–Bordes, 94 F.3d
1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511–
12 (1954)). “Accordingly, a petitioner must show a compelling basis before coram
nobis relief will be granted...and the movant must articulate the fundamental errors
and compelling circumstances for relief in the application for coram nobis.” Id.
(quotations and citations omitted); see also Morgan, 346 U.S. at 511
(“Continuation of litigation after final judgment and exhaustion or waiver of any
statutory right of review should be allowed through this extraordinary remedy only
under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.”). A petitioner
must also provide sound reasons for his failure to seek appropriate earlier relief.
See Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512; McFadden v. United States, 439 F.2d 285, 287 (8th
Cir. 1971). A writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to relitigate issues already
reviewed during prior post-conviction proceedings. See Willis v. United States,
654 F.2d 23, 24 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (absent credible new evidence or
subsequent change in law, coram nobis petitioner is not entitled to another review
of issues previously litigated and fully explored in § 2255 proceedings).
The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine applies to claims not raised in prior writ
applications, such as those brought in this petition. “[I]n general[, abuse-of-thewrit] prohibits subsequent habeas consideration of claims not raised, and thus
defaulted, in the first federal habeas proceeding.” McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S.
Case: 4:14-cv-02100-HEA Doc. #: 48 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 411
467, 490 (1991). The doctrine “concentrate[s] on a petitioner's acts to determine
whether he has a legitimate excuse for failing to raise a claim at the appropriate
time.” Id. The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine applies to coram nobis cases. See
United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (8th Cir. 1996). The
Government has raised the abuse of the writ in its response.
The Court has previously denied Petitioner’s writ. The Appellate Court
summarily affirmed the denial. Petitioner cannot now continue to file the same
motions over and over and over and over. No further action will be taken by the
Court in this regard. Although Petitioner claims he will continue to file the same
motion until he gets relief, Petitioner will not be allowed to thwart this Court’s
authority and is cautioned that failure to adhere to this Court’s Orders may give
rise to a finding of contempt. This case is closed; there remains nothing to address.
Petitioner shall not file additional motions for the same relief that has been denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Error Coram
Nobis [Doc. No. 43, 44, and 47] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall not file any other
Case: 4:14-cv-02100-HEA Doc. #: 48 Filed: 08/17/20 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 412
motions for the relief sought in these motions.
Dated this 17th day of August, 2020.
_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?