IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30708

Summary Calendar

RICHARD LAY,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

ROBERT TANNER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:10-CV-4162

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Lay, Louisiana prisoner # 110315, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a writ of error coram nobis. He sets forth arguments 

regarding the claims that he raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, which 

was denied in 2011, and in various postjudgment motions in which he sought

reconsideration of the denial of that application. 

* 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

May 23, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30708 Document: 00512640958 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2014
No. 13-30708

While the district court did not address its jurisdiction, we must consider 

the basis of the district court’s jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. See 

Bridgmon v. Array Systems Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 575 (5th Cir. 2003). Because 

Lay still is in custody and seeks to attack a state conviction, he was not entitled 

to relief through a motion for a writ of error coram nobis. See Jimenez v. 

Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996); Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 

513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982). Instead, given that Lay’s motion attacked his 

confinement pursuant to a state court judgment, the district court should have 

treated his motion as a § 2254 application. See § 2254; Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 

U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005). However, the district court lacked jurisdiction to do 

so because Lay previously filed a § 2254 application, and we did not authorize 

the filing of a successive § 2254 application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United 

States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).

The district court’s judgment is affirmed on the alternative basis that 

the district court lacked jurisdiction. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 

142 (5th Cir. 1994). Lay’s motions for leave to amend his reply brief, for the 

appointment of counsel, and to supplement the record on appeal are denied.

We previously warned Lay that the filing of repetitious or frivolous 

motions would invite the imposition of sanctions. See Lay v. Tanner, No. 12-

30753, slip. op. at 2 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013). Further, we previously imposed 

sanctions in unrelated cases. Lay’s appeal shows that he has failed to heed our 

warning and that the prior sanctions were insufficient to deter Lay from 

frivolous filings. Therefore, Lay is ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of 

$200 to the Clerk of this Court. He is barred from filing in this court or in any 

court subject to this court’s jurisdiction any challenge to his conviction or 

sentence until the sanction is paid in full, unless he first obtains leave of the 

court in which he seeks to file such challenge. Lay is also cautioned that filing 

2

 Case: 13-30708 Document: 00512640958 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2014
No. 13-30708

any future frivolous or repetitive challenges to his conviction or sentence in 

this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to 

additional and progressively more severe sanctions.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION 

WARNING ISSUED.

3

 Case: 13-30708 Document: 00512640958 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2014