IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

FREDDIE M. PICKETT §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-332

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Freddie M. Pickett, a prisoner currently confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brings this

petition for writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

The petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Factual Background

On February23, 1995, Petitioner was placed on deferred adjudication probation for five years

for assault. Petitioner claims the prosecutor changed the offense to aggravated assault at some point. 

Petitioner states that he finally discharged the sentence on April 4, 2003, but the prior conviction for

aggravated assault is allegedly causing the parole board to deny Petitioner release on parole for a

different conviction and sentence. Petitioner seeks an order modifying the judgment to reflect that

the offense was assault, not aggravated assault.

Case 1:23-cv-00332-MAC-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 30
Analysis

A writ of coram nobis is available as an avenue of collateral attack when the petitioner has

completed his sentence and is no longer in custodypursuant to the conviction. United States v. Dyer,

136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available in some

circumstances to a petitioner who suffers civil disabilities as a consequence of the conviction, and

the alleged error is of sufficient magnitude to justify relief. United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532,

534 (5th Cir. 2004). However, coram nobis is not an available remedy to attack a state criminal

judgment in federal court. Back v. Amarillo Police Dept., 673 F. App’x 458, 458 (5th Cir. 2017). 

As a result, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Recommendation

This petition for writ of coram nobis should be denied.

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

2

Case 1:23-cv-00332-MAC-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 31
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. `1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

3

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 30th day of November, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00332-MAC-ZJH Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 32