Daniele v. United States of America
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment [Doc. # 4 ] is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 03/26/2015. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 4:14CV2100 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. The motion will be
Petitioner filed the instant application for writ of error coram nobis, pursuant to the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 16511, brought to vacate petitioner’s 1988 conviction and sentence, on
December 23, 2014. On March 17, 2015, the Court denied petitioner’s application, without
prejudice. The Court then transferred the application to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
The Court has reviewed petitioner’s arguments for relief from judgment and does not find
them persuasive. The Court found that petitioner had abused the writ process and brought a
second or successive collateral attack on his conviction because all of the purported “evidence”
that petitioner used in his brief to bolster his claims for relief, was known to him at the time he
brought his prior petition for writ of error coram nobis before this Court. Quite simply, under
Eighth Circuit precedence, this is undoubtedly an abuse of the writ, or a second or successive
collateral attack on his conviction. See United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 11721
As coram nobis relief is “substantially equivalent” to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, see United States v. Camacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (8th Cir. 1996), the Court
reviewed the case pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts.
73 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Shoupe, 299 Fed.Appx 610, 2008 WL 4899348, *2 (2008);
Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1965); Katz v. United States, 494 Fed.
Appx. 679, 2012 WL 5974456 (8th Cir. Nov. 30, 2012).
As to whether it was necessary to transfer this action to the United States Court of
Appeals, or simply deny and dismiss the case outright, the procedural juxtaposition is truly
irrelevant as this question. Either way, petitioner’s application for writ would be denied by this
Court, as it should. And the Court stands by that ruling.
However, as the Court reads precedent in the Eighth Circuit, and not the different Circuit
Courts cited to in petitioner’s brief, the proper course of action on a second or successive
collateral attack on a conviction in the Eighth Circuit is to either deny and dismiss a petition
outright or transfer the petition to the Court of Appeals. This Court will continue to follow such
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to alter or amend judgment [Doc.
#4] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2015.
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?