Tommy-James C. Raven III v. State of Oklahoma, et. al.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 07/20/2016. (jb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TOMMY-JAMES C. RAVEN, III,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-289-D

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued
June 14, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell [Doc. No. 16]. Judge
Mitchell recommends a dismissal of Petitioner’s Writ of Error Coram Nobis [Doc. No. 1] for
lack of jurisdiction to presently review his state court criminal conviction. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), Petitioner objects to the Report and
Recommendation on the ground that it does not address his actual request, which is “to have
this [C]ourt review the appeal decision that was in fact rendered within this [C]ourt.” Pet’r’s
Obj. [Doc. No. 17] at 2. The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record,1 finds
Petitioner’s Objection should be overruled, and that the Report and Recommendation should
be adopted.

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), where the district court refers dispositive matters to a
magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, the district court “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id.; Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812 F.3d
1238, 1246 (10th Cir. 2015).

The Court disagrees with Petitioner’s contention that he is not seeking review of his
state court conviction. Petitioner’s Writ asks the Court to exercise its inherent authority to
“set[] aside the state conviction, and sentence from the State of Oklahoma, because it was
obtained in violation of due process of law.”2 Writ [Doc. No. 1] at 1. Petitioner further
requests that this Court determine whether the factual findings of the state court “are
supported by substantial competent evidence, and whether those findings are ‘constitutionally
sufficient’ to support it’s [sic] conclusion of law.” Id. at 9.3 Finally, Petitioner seeks the
production of evidence from the state court proceedings (Pet’r’s Obj. [Doc. No. 17] at 4), and
a grant of “a post-sentence motion to withdraw [a] guilty plea.” Id. at 3. Liberally construed,
it is clear Petitioner’s writ seeks to overturn his original state conviction. As Judge Mitchell
correctly concluded, “federal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis with
respect to state criminal judgments.” R. & R. [Doc. No. 16] at 4 (quoting Rawlins v. Kansas,
714 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2013)).

2

As the Report and Recommendation clearly summarizes, Petitioner raises the “‘claim of Actual
Innocence, and the (pure) act of Fraud Upon the Courts . . . .’ because ‘the § 2254 . . . Writ is no longer
available’ to him.” R & R [Doc. No. 16] at 2 (quoting Writ [Doc. No. 1] at 24). Petitioner acknowledges that
“before filing this action he unsuccessfully sought authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.” Id. (citing Writ [Doc.
No.1] at 24-25). “Petitioner maintains ‘the writ of error coram nobis . . . is the last of the available remedies
for petitioner to raise . . . .’” Id. at 3 (quoting Writ [Doc. No. 1] at 26-27).
3

Although Petitioner’s writ omits the word “state” from its request regarding findings of fact from
the “district” court, the remainder of the paragraph is devoted solely to Petitioner’s complaints regarding his
state court appointed counsel and lack of evidence of record. See Writ [Doc. No. 1] at 9. Read together, it
is clear that Petitioner is seeking a review of the state district court’s findings of fact.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 16]
is adopted in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2016.

3