Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40759/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40759-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40759

Summary Calendar

HERRON KENT DUCKETT,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:16-CV-1167

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Herron Kent Duckett, Texas prisoner # 1920602, has appealed the 

denial, for lack of jurisdiction, of any relief on his ostensible coram nobis 

motions challenging his jury trial conviction and 40-year sentence for evading 

arrest by use of a vehicle and for using or exhibiting a deadly weapon during 

his evasion. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40759 Document: 00515378486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2020
No. 19-40759

2

“The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy” unavailable to 

those still incarcerated. Jimenez v. Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996) 

(italicization omitted). The writ “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). “It is well settled that the writ of error coram nobis is not 

available in federal court to attack state criminal judgments.” Id. Thus, the 

district court did not err in deciding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant Duckett 

coram nobis relief, because he is imprisoned pursuant to a state court 

judgment. See id.; see also United States v. Bowler, 252 F.3d 741, 743 (5th Cir. 

2001).

Duckett’s coram nobis motions in reality seek § 2254 relief, and thus 

would be successive habeas applications, given that they challenge the same 

judgment that Duckett unsuccessfully attacked before in a § 2254 proceeding. 

See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007). But, as the district court 

recognized, it was without jurisdiction to construe the motions as successive 

§ 2254 applications and grant relief on that basis, as we had not authorized 

Duckett to file them. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 681, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999); 

see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Because the district court recognized that it lacked jurisdiction to grant 

Duckett any relief, the judgment is AFFIRMED. In view of the foregoing, we 

DENY Duckett’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for bail.

Case: 19-40759 Document: 00515378486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2020