McKinney v. USA

Filing 8

ORDER denying 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus; denying as moot 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 3/6/2025. (DCB) Mailed to Michael McKinney 44246-074 MEIGS COUNTY JAIL 410 River Road Decatur, TN 37322.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
MICHAEL MCKINNEY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-251
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Michael McKinney’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(Doc. 2), his motions requesting appointed counsel (Docs. 3, 5), and his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 7). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s application for a writ (Doc. 2)
will be DENIED, his motions requesting appointed counsel (Docs. 3, 5) will be DENIED AS
MOOT, and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) will be DENIED AS MOOT.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus on November 25, 2024. (See

Doc. 2.) His application is difficult to follow. (See Doc. 2.) However, he cites the case number
1:11-cr-74, and specifically states that he seeks a writ of habeas corpus. (See id. at 1.)
Additionally, Petitioner seems to assert that law enforcement officers planted false evidence that
led to his conviction in Case No. 1:11-cr-74. (See id. at 1–5.) It appears that Petitioner is no
longer in federal custody. (See Doc. 136 in Case No. 1:11-cr-74.) As such, the Court construes
his petition as seeking a writ of error coram nobis. See Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227,
231 (6th Cir. 1996) (“The writ of error coram nobis is used to vacate a federal sentence or

conviction when a § 2255 motion is unavailable—generally, when the petitioner has served his
sentence completely and thus is no longer ‘in custody’ as required for § 2255 relief.”).
II.

STANDARD OF LAW
“A federal court's power to issue a coram nobis writ comes from the All Writs Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1651.” Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 231 (6th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
“Coram nobis may be used only to review errors of the most fundamental character, that is, such
as rendered the proceeding itself invalid.” Id. (quoting Flippins v. United States, 747 F.2d 1089,
1091 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)) (internal quotations omitted). “The writ may be granted if the
petitioner demonstrates: (1) an error of fact; (2) unknown at the time of trial; (3) of a
fundamentally unjust character which probably would have altered the outcome of the
challenged proceeding if it had been known.” Barrow v. United States, 455 F. App’x 631, 634
(6th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 237 F.3d 751, 755 (6th Cir. 2001)) (internal
quotation omitted). “Coram nobis is only appropriate when necessary to remedy an ongoing
civil disability, such as an enhanced penalty for a recidivist offender.” United States v. Holley,
No. 23-5903, 2024 WL 4554805, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2024) (quoting United States v.
Castano, 906 F.3d 458, 463 (6th Cir. 2018)) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). A civil
disability must meet the following test:
First, the disability must be causing a present harm; it is not enough to raise
purely speculative harms or harms that occurred completely in the past. Second,
the disability must arise out of the erroneous conviction. Third, the potential harm
to the petitioner must be more than incidental.
Castano, 906 F.3d at 463 (citation omitted). Coram nobis is limited to “extreme cases,” and “[i]t
is presumed that the proceedings leading to the prior conviction were correct.” Id. at 462
(citations omitted).

2

III.

ANALYSIS
A. Corum Nobis
Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis. First, Petitioner’s only alleged

evidence demonstrating that law enforcement officers planted false evidence leading to his
conviction in Case No. 1:11-cr-74 is “Karen Annette McKinney Lindsey Maskew’s own
admittance.” (See Doc. 2, at 4.) Petitioner does not provide a declaration or affidavit from this
individual, as he states that “put under pressure and [interrogation] [sic], she will admit to her
entire scheme of coercion.” (Id. at 7.) This is insufficient to show that Petitioner is entitled to
relief. Cf. Barrow, 455 F. App’x at 634–35 (finding that the petitioner was not entitled to coram
nobis relief when he failed to supply pertinent records to support his claims).
Additionally, none of Petitioner’s allegations contradict his guilty plea in Case No. 1:11cr-74. “When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty
of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating
to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Rather, the defendant “may only attack the
voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from
counsel was not within the standards set forth in [McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970)].”
Id. Petitioner pled guilty to count one of the indictment in Case No. 1:11-cr-74. (See Docs. 30,
31 in Case No. 1:11-cr-74.) Petitioner’s claims in his application for coram nobis do not address
the nature of his plea. (See Doc. 2.) As such, he may not now “raise independent claims relating
to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” See
Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267.

3

Petitioner also fails to show that he is suffering from a qualifying civil disability. The
harms Petitioner identifies in his application for coram nobis occurred in the past. (See Doc. 2, at
4 (alleging that his criminal conviction led to a loss of “dignity, liberty, and life as [Petitioner]
knew it” prior to his arrest).) Petitioner’s request for “material compensation” also suggests that
he seeks redress for a past harm. (See id. at 8.) A qualifying civil disability “must be causing a
present harm.” Castano, 906 F.3d at 463 (citation omitted). Petitioner does not allege any
present harm (see Doc. 2), and, as such, he is not entitled to a writ of coram nobis.
Lastly, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. “To avoid the bar, a coram
nobis petitioner must demonstrate that sound reasons exist for not seeking appropriate relief
previously as a lengthy delay prejudices the government's ability to respond to the petition and to
reprosecute a meritorious case.” Craven v. United States, 26 F. App’x 417, 419 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted). Petitioner explains that he was unaware of the facts he alleged in his petition
at the time he filed for relief under § 2255 in Case No. 1:11-cr-74. (Doc. 2, at 3.) Petitioner also
claims that “he was recently made aware” of the facts alleged in his petition. (Id. at 7.)
Petitioner offers no other explanation pertaining to when he discovered the facts alleged in his
petition. (See Doc. 2.) Petitioner filed his § 2255 in Case No. 1:11-cr-74 in August 2013. (See
Doc. 44 in Case No. 1:11-cr-74.) This is over eleven years from the date he filed his petition for
coram nobis. (See Doc. 2.) The Court finds a delay of over eleven years unreasonable in this
circumstance, when Petitioner does not provide the date he discovered the facts alleged and
provides no explanation for his delay in filing for relief outside of the statements the Court
identified above. Cf. Holley, 2024 WL 4554805 at *3 (“Sound policy dictates that coram nobis
claims be brought as early as possible . . . .” (internal quotation, citation, and alteration omitted));

4

Craven, 26 F. App’x at 419 (finding a seven-year delay unreasonable when the petitioner offered
no reason for the delay).
B. Appoint Counsel
Considering that the Court has denied Petitioner’s application for a writ, his motions
requesting the appointment of counsel (Docs. 3, 5) are DENIED AS MOOT.1
C. In Forma Pauperis
Petitioner also requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 7.) Petitioner’s
application for a writ was docketed as a § 2255 action associated with Case No. 1:11-cr-74, and,
thus, he should not be charged a filing fee. Accordingly, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s application for a writ (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

Petitioner’s motions seeking appointed counsel (Docs. 3, 5) are DENIED AS MOOT.
Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Even assuming that these motions are not moot, Petitioner has no right to counsel, see United
States v. Oliver, No. 3:17-CR-41-3, 2020 WL 2310391, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2020)
(explaining that “there is no general constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction
proceedings”), and the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted.
5