(HC) Patterson v. On Habeas Corpus ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN DAMON PATTERSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01049-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CORRECT, DIRECTING CLERK OF 13 v. COURT TO CORRECT DOCKET TEXT, SUBSTITUTE RESPONDENT, AND 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE CALIFORNIA, 15 (ECF No. 4) Respondent. 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 CORAM NOBIS 18 19 Petitioner Bryan Damon Patterson is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of coram 20 nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Given that coram nobis relief is not available in federal court 21 to attack a state court conviction, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed. 22 I. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Motion for Order of Correction 25 On September 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion “to correct the Court’s error in 26 proceeding title and Respondent identity.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.)1 Although the docket text states that 27 Document No. 1 is a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Court is aware that Petitioner is 1 proceeding with a petition for writ of coram nobis. The Court notes that the petition did not name 2 any Respondent, and it appears that Petitioner seeks to substitute the People of the State of 3 California as Respondent in this matter. The Court will grant Petitioner’s motion and direct the 4 Clerk of Court to correct the docket text to reflect that Document No. 1 is a petition for writ of 5 coram nobis and to substitute the People of the State of California as Respondent in this matter. 6 B. Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis 7 “Both the Supreme Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have long made clear that the writ of 8 error coram nobis is a highly unusual remedy, available only to correct grave injustices in a 9 narrow range of cases where no more conventional remedy is applicable.” United States v. Riedl, 10 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007). As a “writ of error coram nobis attacking [a] conviction 11 may only be brought in the sentencing court,” United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127, 1131 12 (9th Cir. 2002), “[c]oram nobis relief is not available in federal court to attack a state court 13 conviction,” Casas-Castrillon v. Warden, 265 F. App’x 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2008). Accord 14 Pomeroy v. Alaska, 785 F. App’x 470, 470 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The district court properly 15 dismissed Pomeroy’s petition challenging his Alaska state conviction for assault because coram 16 nobis relief is not available in federal court to attack a state court conviction.”); Hensley v. 17 Municipal Court, 453 F.2d 1252, 1252 n.2 (9th Cir. 1972) (“We are unable to treat this petition 18 as one seeking coram nobis relief because [the petitioner] seeks to challenge a state court 19 proceeding in federal court. Coram nobis lies only to challenge errors occurring in the same 20 court.”), rev’d on other grounds, 411 U.S. 345 (1973). 21 Here, Petitioner seeks coram nobis relief with respect to his 2003 Merced County 22 Superior Court convictions.2 “[B]ecause coram nobis relief is not available in federal court to 23 attack a state court conviction,” Pomeroy, 785 F. App’x at 470, the Court does not have 24 jurisdiction over the petition and it should be dismissed.3 25 2 Petitioner was released from custody on June 13, 2008. (ECF No. 1 at 6–7.) Petitioner was later arrested on 26 unrelated charges in the Solano County Superior Court. The 2003 convictions challenged in the instant petition were used to enhance Petitioner’s sentence that he is currently serving. (ECF No. 1 at 7 n.2.) 27 3 To the extent the petition could be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging Petitioner’s current enhanced sentence on the ground that his prior convictions were unconstitutional, relief is not warranted because the 1 I. 2 ORDER & RECOMMENDATION 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. Petitioner’s motion to correct (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED; and 5 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to: 6 a. Correct the docket text to reflect that Document No. | is a petition for writ of 7 coram nobis; 8 b. Substitute People of the State of California as Respondent; and 9 c. Randomly assign a District Court Judge to the present matter. 10 Further, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that that the petition for writ of 11 | coram nobis be DISMISSED. 12 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 13 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 14 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 15 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 16 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 17 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 18 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 19 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 20 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 21 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 5, 2022 IJ heey 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27} federal habeas relief in this Court with respect to the Solano County Superior Court convictions in Patterson v. 28 | People of the State of California, No. 2:12-cv-02475-KIM-EFB, and the petition was denied on the merits.