Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00766/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00766-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH NOWLING,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 15cv0766 JAH 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM

NOBIS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) AND DENYING

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS MOOT

Petitioner Keith Nowling, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for Writ of

Error Coram Nobis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Petitioner’s “Writ”), seeking review of

the sentence imposed in case #3:12-cr-01253-JAH-2. See Doc. # 1 at 3. Petitioner

additionally filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. # 2.

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a petitioner’s failure to prepay

the entire fee only if the petitioner is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, complaints filed by

any person seeking to proceed IFP are subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and

dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such

15cv0766

Case 3:15-cv-00766-JAH-JLB Document 5 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Upon review of Petitioner’sWrit, this Courtfinds that it must be dismissed because

it fails to present a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. §

1651. To state a claim for coram nobis relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a petitioner must

show that: (1) a more usual remedy is unavailable, (2) valid reasons existed for not

attacking the conviction earlier, (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction

sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III, and (4) the error is

of the most fundamental character. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604

(9th Cir. 1987). The requirements are conjunctive, such that failure to meet any one of

them is fatal. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002).

In hisWrit, Petitionerrequests correction ofthe sentence imposed in case #3:12-cr01253-JAH-2. See Doc. # 1 at 9. Specifically, Petitioner contends that seven

misdemeanor convictions were improperly included in his pre-sentence documentation,

resulting in this Court’s consideration of an improper guideline range during sentencing. 

Id. at 8. In other words, Petitioner attempts to collaterally attack the same sentence he

currently serves.

As plead, Petitioner fails to show that his claim is properly brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1651. Coram nobis relief affords a remedy specifically intended to attack and

redress the “lingering collateral consequences” of unlawful convictions that have already

been “fully served.” See Telnik v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th Cir. 1994). In the

Ninth Circuit, habeas corpus relief is the usual remedy for inmates in federal custody

seeking to collaterally attack an allegedly unlawful sentence being served by the inmate. 

Id.

Petitioner is an inmate in federal custody alleging that the sentence he currently

serves was unlawfully imposed. See Doc. # 1 at 3. Thus, pursuit of the more usual

remedy requires filing a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Telnik,

24 F.3d at 45. Petitioner’s vague contention that “[t]he Title 28 U.S.C. [§] 2255, is not

2 15cv0766

Case 3:15-cv-00766-JAH-JLB Document 5 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

available to the petitioner” is insufficient to show that the remedy is unavailable. See Doc.

# 1 at 10. Therefore, Petitioner has not met his burden to state a claim entitling him to

coram nobis relief. 

Accordingly, this Court finds that Petitioner’s Writ must be dismissed, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because it fails to present a cognizable claim for relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s Writ of Error Coram Nobis is DISMISSED without prejudice;

and

2. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperus is DENIED as

moot.

Dated: July 24, 2015 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

3 15cv0766

Case 3:15-cv-00766-JAH-JLB Document 5 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 3