Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:97cr44-RH

vs.

JOHANN ROSHE WOLMARANS,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTIONS

Defendant Wolmarans has submitted a letter to the clerk along with a document

titled "THE FOLLOWING IS A SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION,"

handwritten above which is "Forma Pauperis," and a "MOTION FILED UNDER THE

[WRIT] OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS SEE ALSO NEW EVIDENCE." Docs. 144-146. 

Current Claims

In his recent letter, Defendant advises that he was told by a clerk at the Eleventh

Circuit to "re file" a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 144. He also advises

that he has "rewrit[ten] some of the wording of the previous filed motion under Coram

Nobis; therefore please disregard the previous motion." Id. He states that Judge Hinkle

and myself are "being removed" from any of his cases, "because of various court ethics
Page 2 of 6

Case No. 4:97cr44-RH

being administered against them." Id. He warns that, if he has to appeal, he will include

the new coram nobis petition and his letter with the appeal. Id. Finally, he asks:

After mailing the court's decision to my American address, please call my

wife to inform her; we do have evidence that my mail is getting confiscated

by the crime family; at Havana post office. 

Id. 

In the in forma pauperis motion, Defendant states that he cannot pay to docket

his appeal. Doc. 145. He also advises that he is separated from his wife, has signed

most of his property rights away to her by prenuptial agreement, and that their

separation "may end up in a divorce if this matter [presumably the coram nobis or

related appeal] is not quickly resolved." Id. 

Finally, in the newest motion for coram nobis relief, Defendant is "seeking a

reversal of an unfair conviction placed on me by Federal Government," claiming that 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is unlawful and that the Government lacked jurisdiction. Doc. 146, p.

1. He claims "many factors" in addition to the illegal statute, which make his conviction

unconstitutional and unethical. Id., p. 2. He notes his filing of a coram nobis motion in

May of 2003, denial of which he could not appeal as he had been removed from the

country "and because of this terrible destruction and sickness of his wife he could not

respond," and lacked the means to respond. Id. 

The current coram nobis motion asserts that Judge Hinkle and myself should not

be involved in resolving the motion, as we have been removed in another case filed by

Defendant. Id., p. 4. Attached in support is an order filed in case number 4:01cv234-

SPM, reassigning the case to Magistrate Judge Davis. Id., p. 16 (doc. 18 in that case). 

That was a civil rights suit filed by Defendant and Wanda Wolarans in which I was
Page 3 of 6

1

 This was the address in Havana, Florida, the same address used in

Defendant's current motion. Doc. 146, p. 10. It is the address of Defendant's wife. See

doc. 127, pp. 2-3, noting mail issues and direcitng the clerk to mail documents to

Defendant "in care of Wanda Wolmarans" at that address.

Case No. 4:97cr44-RH

(among others) specifically named as a defendant. See doc. 17 in that case. The

complaint was dismissed as to myself and Judge Hinkle for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and due to absolute immunity. Docs. 26 (report and recommendation at pp.

3-7, 14-15) and 28 (order adopting recommendation) in that case. 

Prior Filings

Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied as he was no

longer in custody, and because Defendant was not entitled to relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.

60, Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, or coram nobis petition. Docs. 88 and 93 (report and

recommendation) (adopted by the court in an order also addressing docs. 89 and 92). 

Judgment was entered on the docket on February 14, 2001, and a certificate of

appealability was denied by this court and the Eleventh Circuit. Docs. 94, 100 and 106. 

Motions for extension of time to amend and to disqualify me were denied. Docs.

113, see also 116 (denying doc. 115 in light of 113). 

A request for coram nobis relief from the conviction and sentence in this case

was denied. Doc. 119 and 120 (report and recommendation as adopted by the court in

an order entered on July 10, 2003). Recusal was sought (also on the basis of case

number 4:01cv234-SPM) and found unwarranted. Doc. 119, pp. 2-6. Defendant later

filed a motion for status of his coram nobis request. Doc. 121. The motion was

granted, and the clerk was directed to send copies of docs. 119 and 120 to Defendant,

and to make sure the docket reflected the correct address as noted on doc. 121.1
Page 4 of 6

Case No. 4:97cr44-RH

Reconsideration was denied. Doc. 124. Defendant then filed additional documents,

resulting in an order and report and recommendation signed on October 15, 2004. Doc.

127. The recommendation noted that a previous request for recusal was rejected, and

noted the problem with Defendant's mail reaching him in a timely manner despite his

claim that mail sent to his wife's address would be forwarded to him. Id., p. 2. As no

judgment had been entered on denial of the coram nobis, it was recommended that

motions be denied and a separate judgment be entered on doc. 120 to allow Defendant

to appeal. Id., pp. 2-3. The recommendation was adopted and judgment was entered

on the docket on December 7, 2004, on doc. 120. Docs. 128 and 129. Defendant did

not appeal. 

Defendant's last for motion writ of error coram nobis was filed in August of 2009. 

Doc. 130. The motion was denied, and a request to disqualify Judge Hinkle was

denied. Docs. 131 (report and recommendation), 133 (denying disqualification), and

134 (adopting recommendation and denying coram nobis with prejudice). Defendant

then filed a motion with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which was referred to this

court and filed as a notice of appeal from the denial of coram nobis relief. Doc. 135

(filed as notice of appeal from doc. 134). The appeal was dismissed by the Eleventh

Circuit on January 11, 2010, for Defendant's failure to prosecute and to pay the filing

fee. Doc. 143 (corrected order). Dismissal was preceded by two letters to Defendant

from the Clerk of the Eleventh Circuit, advising him to pay the fee, or to submit an in

forma pauperis request to the district court, or his case would be summarily dismissed. 

Docs. 139 and 141 (letters of December 1 and 21, 2009). It is noted that those letters
Page 5 of 6

2

 The letters were sent to Defendant at 22384 Lime Hill Road in Bristol, Virginia. 

Docs. 139 and 141. That address was used by Defendant in 2000 and 2001. See

docs. 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, and 96. The address used most recently in this court has been

10746 Florida Georgia Highway, Havana, FL 32333. This is the address of Wanda

Wolmarans, wife of Defendant. See doc. 127, pp. 2 and 3 (noting that Defendant, who

lives in South Africa, claimed that his wife would forward mail to him, but it did not

appear it was forwarded in a timely manner; directing the clerk to forward all future

documents to Defendant "in care of Wanda Wolmarans" at the Havana address). 

3

 To the extent Defendant is attempting to "re file" a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal as to his last appeal, there was never a first motion to be re filed. 

Moreover, it would be moot because the appeal was already dismissed. The current

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 145) is construed as a request to appeal in

forma pauperis if the current coram nobis motion (doc. 146) is denied.

Case No. 4:97cr44-RH

were written to Defendant at a different address than is currently used in this case,2 and

copies will be sent to Defendant. After dismissal of that appeal, Defendant filed the

documents now pending. 

Recommendation 

Nothing set forth in the most recent motion for coram nobis changes the prior

analysis or determination that Defendant is not entitled to relief. The last

recommendation (doc. 131) is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For all

the reasons stated there and in prior rulings noted above, Defendant's coram nobis

motion should be denied with prejudice. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be

denied as to any future appeal, as it would not be taken in good faith and Defendant is

otherwise not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a).3

It is therefore ORDERED: the clerk shall send copies of this report and

recommendation, along with copies of docs 139, 141, and 143, to Defendant "in care of

Wanda Wolmarans" at the Havana address (reflected on the docket), and to Defendant

at 23 Salfordad, Cots Wold, Port Elizabeth, South Africa 6045. 
Page 6 of 6

Case No. 4:97cr44-RH

It is further respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion for writ of error coram

nobis, doc. 146, be DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, and that the in forma pauperis motion,

doc. 145, construed as a request to appeal in forma pauperis from the denial of doc.

146 (if this report and recommendation is adopted) be DENIED. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 1, 2010. 

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.