Castillo v. United States of America

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge J Richard Creatura. Show Cause Response due by 2/4/2016. (MET) cc: petitioner

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

ELSTON T CASTILLO,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05852-RBL-JRC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Respondent.

Petitioner Elston T Castillo has filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis under the
“All Writs Act,” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) to challenge his 1997 conviction of unlawful use of a
fortified building. Dkt. 4. Petitioner argues that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he was
not afforded effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 5-6. Petitioner asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction to consider the instant petition. See id.
However, “[i]t is well settled that the writ of error coram nobis is not available in federal
court to attack state criminal judgments. A writ of error coram nobis can only issue to aid the
jurisdiction of the court in which the conviction was had.” Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513,
514 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d 577, 578 n. 2 (9th Cir.1955), cert.

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1 denied, 351 U.S. 911 (1956) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502,
2 506 (1954) ( “the writ [of coram nobis] can only issue, if at all, only in aid of the jurisdiction of
3 the [ ] court which the conviction was had.”); See Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 455 F.3d 131, 133-34
4 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). See also, United States v. Tucor International, Inc., 35
5 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1177 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“[d]istrict courts are therefore authorized to issue the
6 writ in federal criminal matters pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), [citation
7 omitted] but may not entertain a petition for the writ with respect to challenges to state
8 convictions”); Martinez v. Lockyer, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (same).
9

It is unclear whether petitioner’s 1997 conviction was in state or federal court. See Dkt. 4.

10 However, the Court notes that according to the state court record in petitioner’s previous 28
11 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, petitioner pled guilty in superior court in Pierce County, Washington, to
12 one count of unlawful use of a fortified building in order to deliver controlled substance. See
13 Castillo v. ICE Field Office Dir., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1236-37 (W.D. Wash. 2012). If
14 petitioner is challenging his 1997 state court conviction, the Court lacks jurisdiction because a
15 writ of coram nobis is not available in federal court to attack the judgment of a state court.
16

Petitioner is ordered to show cause no later than February 4, 2016, why his writ of

17 coram nobis should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to show
18 cause will result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.
19

Dated this 4th day of January, 2016.

A

20
21

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2