Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): I, who sought an injunction against any federal or state court proceedings in conflict with the ruling in Canady I pursuant to the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (enabling federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions”). The judgment protected by the injunction is the judgment in Canady I, which was properly issued in federal court, as it is undisputed that appellants properly filed their original class action complaint in federal court. As long as the original lawsuit was properly brought in federal court, the federal court retains subject matter jurisdiction to remove any subsequent state law action to federal court for purposes of applying the All Writs Act. See Xiong v. Minnesota, 195 F.3d 424, 426-27 (8th Cir.1999) (Xiong) (<HOLDING>); see also NAACP v. Metropolitan Council, 144 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that removal to federal court was proper for claims asserted under all writs act (B) holding that this court has authority in appropriate circumstances to issue writs under all writs act 28 usc  1651a (C) holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act (D) recognizing the all writs act gives federal courts authority to issue writs of coram nobis to correct fundamental errors in criminal proceedings where the person is no longer in custody (E) holding that the all writs act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental federal jurisdiction in situations where federal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking
Output (English): holding that the all writs act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental federal jurisdiction in situations where federal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking