Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01670/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01670-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

 Even historically, a petition seeking coram nobis relief would not be permitted where 1

petitioner challenged a state court proceeding in federal court. Boags v. Beverly Hills Mun.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH EDWARD CAPOGRECO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S- 06-1670 MCE GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application which the court must

construe as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Pursuant to the court’s order, filed August 9,

2006, petitioner subsequently filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Although petitioner seeks to characterize his application as one for a writ of

[error] coram nobis, such relief is now statutorily prohibited. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(“[w]rits of

coram nobis ...are abolished....”). Petitioner also seeks to circumvent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by 1

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 11/27/06 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

Court, 988 F.2d 117 n. 2 (9 Cir. 1993)(“[t]he writ of error coram nobis is a common law writ

th

used to obtain review and correction of a factual error affecting the validity of a judgment by the

same court which rendered it”); Hensley v. Municipal Court, et al., 453 2d 1252 n.2 (9 Cir. th

1972), reversed on other grounds, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S. Ct. 1571 (1973)(“[c]oram nobis lies only

to challenge errors occurring in the same court”). Moreover, even a federal petitioner would not

be eligible to proceed upon such a writ in federal court while in custody. U.S. v. Kwan, 407

F.3d 1005, 1011 (9 Cir. 2005)(petitioner may not circumvent the AEDPA when eligible for th

relief under the more usual remedy of a habeas petition). Estate of McKinney By and Through

McKinney v. U.S., 71 F.3d 779, 781 (9 Cir. 1995) (“[t]he writ of error coram nobis affords a th

remedy to attack a conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in

custody”); Larche v. Simons, 53 F.3d 1068 (9 Cir. 1995). th

 In fact, court records also indicate that petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas

2

corpus in Case No. Civ - S - 93-0182 WBS JFM P, which was denied on May 2, 1996, a decision

affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in a filing in this court on May 12, 1997. 

2

contending that his challenge to his conviction is predicated upon contract law, specifically the

alleged breach of his plea bargain contract by the prosecution and the Sacramento County

Superior Court in which he entered his guilty plea, apparently in order to avoid a possible death

sentence, to two counts of murder with special circumstances and use of a firearm in commission

of a felony, after which he was sentenced to a life sentence without the possibility of parole plus

two years. Petition, pp. 5-6. However, petitioner’s allegations that the state has breached a plea

agreement and any analysis of state contract law can only arise within the context of a habeas

petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. See, e.g., Davis v. Woodford, 446 F.3d 957 (9 Cir. 2006). th

Court records appear to indicate that petitioner has filed a prior petition in this

court challenging his 1985 conviction. In Capogreco v. Sacramento County, Case No. CIV S98-1410 GEB GGH P, the petition was dismissed on October 23, 1998, and judgment thereon

entered. “Before a second or successive application ...is filed in the district court, the applicant 2

shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). Under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3, “[i]f a second

or successive petition or motion, or an application for leave to file such an application or motion,

is mistakenly submitted to the district court, the district court shall refer it to the court of

appeals.” 

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 11/27/06 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

3

The instant petition may be a second or successive petition to CIV S-98-1410

GEB GGH P because it appears to also be challenging the 1985 conviction and sentence. 

Petitioner must show cause why this action should not be transferred to the Ninth Circuit for the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to consider whether an order should issue allowing petitioner to

proceed with this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner demonstrate, within 30

days, that the instant action is not a successive petition, which must be transferred to the Ninth

Circuit. 

DATED: 11/27/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

capo1670.osc

Case 2:06-cv-01670-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3