Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01483/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01483-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

1 10cv1483 BTM(POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS RAUL BARBA,

Petitioner,

Case No. 10cv1483 BTM(POR)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v.

MATTHEW CATE, EDMUND C.

BROWN,

Respondents.

Carlos Raul Barba (“Barba”) has filed a Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

Barba did not pay the $350 filing fee, nor did he file a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. Therefore, this case is dismissed.

Furthermore, although Barba styles his petition as a Petition for a Writ of Coram

Nobis, Barba is attacking his state conviction for attempted murder and being an ex-felon in

possession of a firearm. Barba is still in custody for this conviction. “The writ of error coram

nobis affords a remedy to attack a conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence

and is no longer in custody.” McKinney ex rel. Estate of McKinney v. United States, 71 F.3d

779, 781 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, coram nobis relief is not available in federal court to

challenge a state conviction. United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“writ of error coram nobis attacking [a state] conviction may only be brought in the

Case 3:10-cv-01483-BTM-POR Document 2 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2 10cv1483 BTM(POR)

sentencing court.”) Accordingly, Barba may not seek coram nobis relief.

To the extent the Court construes Barba’s Petitioner as a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, Barba’s Petition is successive. Barba challenged the same conviction and raised

the same ground regarding erroneous jury instructions in a habeas petition filed in Case No.

99cv0638 JM(JFS). The habeas petition was denied on August 18, 2000. A claim presented

in a second or successive habeas corpus application that was presented in a prior

application shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Moreover, before filing a successive

petition, the petitioner must file a motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an order

authorizing the district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3). It does not

appear that Barba has satisfied this pre-filing requirement. 

For all of these reasons, this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01483-BTM-POR Document 2 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2