[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 12463 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:13

- cv - 80376

- KAM

JULIEN GARCON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, JANE DOE, CRUZ, WARDEN, FCI WILLIAMSBURG , Respondent s - Appellee s .

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 3, 2014) Case: 13-12463 Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Page: 1 of 42 Before TJOFLAT , JORDAN, and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Julien Garcon, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district judge ’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. W e affirm

. I. BACKGROUND Garcon is currently serving a 120

- month sentence of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a felon. His status as a felon result ed from state armed

robbery convictions. On direct appeal , we affirmed his federal conviction and

sentence. United States v. Garcon , 349 F. App’x 377 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)

. He later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was denied

. In his petition for a writ of error coram nobis , Garcon challenge s the state convictions underlying his federal conviction. In a report and recommendation, t he magistrate judge construed the petition as a § 2255 motion, because Garcon essentially was attack ing his federal conviction. Sinc e this was Garcon’s s econd §
2255 motion , the magistrate judge recommended dismissing it as seco nd or
successive. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3)(A)

. The district judge adopted
the re port and recommendation and d eni ed Garcon’s petition.
II. DISCUSSION On appeal , Garcon raises 28 claims that challenge his underlying state convictions, since they were used as a predicate for his federal crime

. Because of

Case: 13-12463 Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Page: 2 of 43 liberal construction of pro se pleadings , we evaluate whether Garcon is entitled to
relief under 28 U .S.C. § 2254, 28 U .S.C. § 2255, or coram nobis. See Boxer X v.
Harris , 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).
A. 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 Relief Garcon seeks the invalidation of state convictions, relief genera lly pursued
in a § 2254 habeas petition. T o bring a § 2254 petition , a petitioner must be in

state custody. Medberry v. Crosby , 351 F.3d 1049, 1060 (11th Cir. 2003)

. Because Garcon is no longer in state custody, he cannot seek relief under § 2254

. See Means v. Alabama , 209 F.3d 1241, 124 2 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“ [A] petitioner who challenges an expired state sentence that was used to enhance his current federal sentence must bring his suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .”).
B

. 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 Relief
W he n a pro se litigant seeks habeas relief through other writs or act ions , we construe the request under the appropriate statut e . Pursuant to Means , § 2255 is
the correct statut e. See id. But w e do not construe coram nobis petitions as habeas petitions, whe n that construction would result in the dismissal of the petition as
second or successive. See United States v . Garcia , 181 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)

. T he district judge correctly interpreted Garcon’s challenge to
his state convictions as an attack on his federal conviction

. Garcon’s petition should not have been construed as a § 2255 motion, because that construction

Case: 13-12463 Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Page: 3 of 44 would mean his petition necessarily would be dismissed as second or successive. For those reasons, Garcon did not seek § 2255 relief , to which he would not be
entitled

. C. Writ of Error Coram Nobis
“A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy available to vacate a conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in custody

. . . . ” United States v. Peter , 310 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)

. Because Garcon is still in federal custody, he cannot seek coram nobis relief for his federal
conviction

. To the extent that Garcon attempts to use this federal coram nobis petition to c hallenge his state conviction, he is in the wrong forum. We have recognized coram nobis “is not available in federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment.” Theriault v. Mississippi , 390 F.2d 657, 657 (5th Cir. 1968) (per curiam)

. 1 If Garcon seeks to bring a coram nobis petition to challenge his state conviction, then he must do it in state court.
III. CONCLUSION Although the district judge construed Garcon’s coram nobis petition as a § 2255 motion, we conclude Garcon wa s not entitled to coram nob is relief. AFFIRMED.

1 The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Pritchard , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Case: 13-12463 Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Page: 4 of 4