Petrovic v. USA
Filing
3
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 7/18/18. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOVICA PETROVIC,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:18CV635 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an action filed by a former federal criminal defendant seeking monetary damages
from the government, which this Court interprets as a coram nobis petition. This case arises
from Petrovic’s conviction on four counts of interstate stalking and two counts of interstate
extortionate threat. United States v. Petrovic, No. 4:10-cv-415-HEA (E.D. Mo. 2010). Petrovic
has served his sentence, and has been deported to Germany. In the instant petition, he claims he
was innocent of the criminal charges against him and should not have been sent to prison, and
the United States Court of Appeals judges who presided over his criminal appeal therefore
violated his federally-protected rights by affirming his convictions and sentences. He seeks
monetary relief in the amount of $6,324,000,000.00.
Federal courts are authorized to grant the common law writ of error coram nobis under
the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954). Coram
nobis is a remedy of last resort for petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to a
criminal conviction, and therefore cannot pursue direct review or collateral relief by means of a
writ of habeas corpus. Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88, 89–90 (2d Cir. 1998). It is not
intended to be a substitute for proceedings brought pursuant to habeas corpus. See U.S. v. Noske,
235 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir. 2000); United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954). If the
petitioner could have brought his claims in habeas corpus in a prior proceeding, the writ of error
coram nobis is unavailable to him. Noske, 235 F.3d at 406; Morgan 346 U.S. at 511.
In this case, all of the alleged violations of Petrovic’s rights could have been raised in
federal habeas corpus. In fact, Petrovic has previously sought and been denied such relief. Thus,
coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy. In addition, Petrovic’s claims are frivolous and
malicious. The nature and tone of the allegations against the United States Court of Appeals
judges demonstrate that Petrovic’s purpose is to insult and disparage them rather than vindicate a
cognizable legal right. Finally, this Court has previously observed that Petrovic has a history of
abusing the judicial process by filing repetitious actions.1 This case will be dismissed. In
addition, Petrovic has not shown that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a Court
could resolve the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings, and the Court will
therefore not issue a certificate of appealability. See Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir.
1997) (citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882–83 (8th Cir. 1994)).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed. A separate order of dismissal
will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated this 18th day of July, 2018
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
See Petrovic v. Jackman, et al., No. 4:16-cv-1770-HEA (E.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2017).
-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?