FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 18 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15058 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -011 62 -C V -C A P -1 P H I L I P A N T H O N Y B O N A D O N N A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N K N O W N D E F E N D A N T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 18, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P hi l i p A nthony B ona donna , a f e de r a l pr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is p e titio n f

o rw r it o f

e r r o rc o r a m n o b is , p u r s u a n t toB on a do nn a do e s n ot m e nti on

Rul e59 (e ) in h is a

pp e llatebrie f, so wede e m hi s 1 arguments with reg ard to that ruleabandone d. Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F .3d 1300, 1317 n.17 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ I ssues that arenot clearly outlined in an appellant’ s initi al brief are deeme d abandone d.”). 2 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 , a n d th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to a m e n d th a t ju d g m e n t, p u r s u a n t to F ed er al R u le C iv il P ro ce d u re 5 9 (e ). T h e d istrict co u rt d ism isse d B o n ad o n n a’s 1 w r i ta s f r i vol ous , c onc l udi ng tha the ha d f a i l e d t o e xha us tthe r e m e dy pr ovi de d by di re ctappeal and t hatthe extra ordi nary re m edy provi ded b y the w ri tof error w as th e r e f o r e u n w a r r a n te d . W e c o n c lu d e th a t B o n a d o n n a ’s a r g u m e n ts a r e u n tim e ly a n d A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 4 A pri l 19 85 , B on adon na w as hal ed before agrand j ury w here he re fuse d to a n s w e rth e g r a n d ju r y ’s q u e s tio n s , e v e n a f te rth e g o v e r n m e n t o f

f e r e d im m u n ity f r o m p r o s e c u tio n . B o n a d o n n a s e r v e d s e v e n te e n m o n th s f o rc iv il c o n te m p t a n d is n o w in c a r c e r a te d o n c h a r g e s r e la te d to th e q u e s tio n s a s k e d b e f o r e th e g r a n d ju r y . H e a r g u e s th a t h is tim e s p e n t in ja il f o rc iv il c o n te m p t w a s a c tu a lly c r im in a l in na tur e a nd tha the s houl d ha ve thos e s e ve nt e e n m onths c ount e d a ga i ns thi s c ur r e nt s e n te n c e a s tim e s e r v e d . I n the di s tr i c tc our t , B ona donna a r gue d tha t , i n 1985 gr a nd j ur y pr oc e e di ng, the gove r nm e ntha d othe rm e a ns of obt a i ni ng the i nf

or m a t i on i tw a s s e e ki ng f r om h im a n d th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t k n e w th a t h e w o u ld n o t te s tif y r e g a r d le s s o f

th e ir3

of f e rof i m m uni ty . T he r e f

or e , he a r gue d, the c ont e m ptor de rw a s m e r e l y puni t i ve r a th e rth a n a n a tte m p t to c o e r c e te s tim o n y . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n d u c te d a f r iv o lity r e v ie w p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A a n d f o u n d th a t th e w r it o f

e r r o rc o r a m n o b is w as an ex trao rd i n ary rem ed y th atw as n o tw arran t ed i n th i s case b ecau se B o n a d o n n a h a d a n a lte r n a tiv e r e m e d y , n a m e ly , h e c o u ld h a v e ap p e a le d h is c iv il cont em ptorder pursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 82 6(b). O n app ea l , B on adon na ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng hi s w ri tof error c oram no bi s bec ause , al tho ug h h e had a ri gh tt o app ea l hi s 198 5 ci vi l -c on t em ptse nt ence , hi s a tt orney di s m i s s e d the appe a l w i thouthi s pe r m i s s i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o di s m i s s f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m unde r28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A i s r evi ew ed de no vo , t aki ng the al l egat i on s i n the com pl ai ntas tru e . S e e Hu g h e s v . L o tt , 3 5 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . We r e v i e w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e w r it o f

e r r o rc o r a m n o b is f

o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . A l i kha ni v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 200 F . 3d 732, 734 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . “ T he de c i s i on t o a l t e rora m e nd j udgm e nti s c om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di stri ctj ud ge and w i l l no tbe ov erturned o n app ea l abse ntan abuse of di sc re t i on . ” A m . H om e A s s ur . C o. v. G l e nn E s t e s s & A s s oc . , I nc . , 763 F . 2d 1237, 1238–39 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . F i r s t , w e de t e r m i ne w he the ra w r i tof e r r orc or a m nobi s i s theIn c rimin a l matters , “ [f]e deral c ourt s h avea uth ority to i ssu ea writ o f error

c oram nobis 2 under theAll Writ s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary reme dy of last re sort availableonly in compelling c ircumstance s wherenece ssary to achieve jus tic e .”Unite d St ate s v . M ill s, 22 1 F .3 d 1 20 1, 12 03 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) . “ Th eba

r f or c oram nobis relief is high,”and the writ may issue only

when ( 1) “there is and w as no other a vailable avenue of re lief”; a

nd (2) “ the er

ror involves a

matter of f

act of the most fundamental c haracter which has not been put in issue or passed upon a nd which renders the procee ding itself ir regular a nd invalid.” Alikhani, 200 F.3d at 734 (quotations omitt ed). Adistrict court “ma y consider c oram nobis petitions onl y

where no other

reme dy is available a

nd the petitioner pre sents sound rea sons for f ailing to se ek re lief ea

rlier.”Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204.

4 p r o p e rp r o c e d u r a l v e h ic le to o b ta in r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e o r ig in a l c o n te m p t o r d e r . S ec on d, af

t erconcl ud i ng thatthe w ri tof error c oram no bi s i s notthe prop er procedural vehi cl e, w e broadl y c on strue B on adon na’ s pro se com pl ai ntt o see k re consi dera t i on un der R ul e 60(b) and anal yz e hi s r equestfor r ec on si dera t i on un der the fr am ew ork est abl i shed by thatrul e. A . W r it o f

E r r o rC o r a m N o b is B o n a d o n n a h a s s ty l e d th i s a s a n a c t i o n f o ra wr i to f

e r r o rc o r a m n o b i s . At co m m o n law , su ch a w rit o f e rr o r w as tak en fr o m th e ju d g m en t o f th e K in g ’s B e n c h a n d a s k e d th a t th e c o u r t r e v ie w its o w n ju d g m e n t, a lle g in g e r r o r s o f f a c t. B l ac k’ s L aw D i ct i on ary 362 (8th ed. 20 04 ). T hu s, the w ri tof error w as f u n c tio n a lly a m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . H o w e v e r , th e w r it o f e r r o rc o r a m n o b is h a s b e e n a b o l i s h e d i n c i v i l c a s e s , a n d th e p r o c e d u r e f o ro b t a i n i n g r e l i e f

f r o m a j udgm e nti n c i vi l c a s e s m us tbe i n the f or m of a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on ori nde pe nde nt a c t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l l s , 221 F . 3d 1201, 1203 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ; s e e F e d.

2See, e.g ., In re Grand Jury Procee dings, 877 F .2d 849, 850 (11th Cir. 1989) 3 (considering a

n appeal from the denial of appe llant’s motion for rele ase f rom a c ivil contempt order based on his failure to testify before a grand jury

). The dif

ferencebetween civil contempt and c rimin a l c onte mpt

is whe ther t

heorder i s b e ingus e d toc omp e l so me on eto obey thec ourt , a s is thec a sewi th c ivi l c onte mpt , o r whe ther t heorder i s u se d s ole ly

to pun ish , a s is thec a se with criminal contempt. See Shillitani v. United St ates, 384 U.S. 364, 368–71, 86 S. Ct. 1531, 15 34–3 6 ( 19 66 ). We h e ld t hat “ a reviewingc ourt

sh ould b ere luc tant to c on c ludethat c ivi l contempt has lost its coerc ive ef fec t prior to the maximum time lim it.” In re Grand Jury Procee dings, 877 F .2d at 850. B onadonna w as held in contempt for less than the maximum lim it. 5 R . C iv . P . 6 0 ( b ) . B on adon na chal l enges acont em ptorder f rom 19 85 . A fe dera l di stri ctcourt m a y or de rthe c onf

i ne m e ntof

“ a w i tne s s i n a ny pr oc e e di ng be f or e . . . [ a ] gr a nd j ury of the U ni t ed S t at es [w ho ] re fuse s w i tho utj ustcause s ho w n t o com pl y w i th an or de rof the c our tt o t e s t i f

y , ” w i th the pe r i od of

c onf i ne m e ntnott o e xc e e d the le s s e ro f th e r e m a in in g te r m o f

th e g r a n d ju r y o r1 8 m o n th s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 8 2 6 ( a ) . T h e c o n f in e m e n t o r d e ris ap p e a la b le , a n d th e ap p e a l m u s t b e a d ju d ic a te d w ith in thi rty day s. 28 U . S . C . § 1 82 6(b). W e have previ ou sl y e m ph as i ze d the i m po rt ance of c ont e xti n de t e r m i ni ng w he n a c i vi l c ont e m ptor de rbe c om e s c r i m i na l c ont e m pt fo r p ro ceed i n g s th ato ccu r reg ard i n g t est i m o n y b efo re a g ran d j u ry. 3 H e r e , th e r e is n o d is p u te th a t in 1 9 8 5 th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e m p lo y e d § 1 8 2 6 to i ncar ce ra t e B on adon na throu gh the end o f the grand j ury’ s t erm , w hi ch m ea ns that the c ont e m ptpr oc e e di ng w a s c i vi l i n na tur e , be c a us e tha ts t a tut e pr ovi de s the m ech an i sm t o co m p el t est i m o n y b efo re a g ran d j u ry. B o n ad o n n a w i sh es t o co n t est6

the s ubs t a nc e of

the c i vi l c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of hi s c ont e m ptor de r , buttha tj udgm e nt i s l on g si nce f

i nal , so he se eks t o revi si tthe i ss ue throu gh thi s w ri tof error c oram n o b i s. A s w e o b serv ed p rev i o u sl y, th e w ri to f erro r co ram n o b i s i s fu n ct i o n al l y a m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . G e ne r a l l y , both the unde r l y i ng m e r i t s a nd the de ni a l of a m ot i on f

or r e c o n s id e r a tio n a r e o n ap p e a l. S to n e v . I N S , 5 1 4 U .S . 3 8 6 , 4 0 1

– 0 3 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 1537, 1547–48 ( 1995) . H ow e ve r , i n thi s c a s e , the m e r i t s of w he the rthe 1985 c ont e m ptor de rw a s c i vi l orc r i m i na l i n na tur e be l ong t o a j udgm e nttha ti s l ong s i nc e f i na l a nd unappe a l a bl e . S e e C a va l i e r e v. A l l s t a t e I ns . C o. , 996 F . 2d 1111, 1115 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . T hus , w e r e vi e w the de ni a l of B ona donna ’ s w r i tof

e r r or c or a m nobi s a s the de ni a l of a m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthe na tur e of the 1985 c ont e m ptor de r , a nd w e c onc l ude tha t , be c a us e the m e r i t s of w he the rthe proceedi ng w as ci vi l or cr i m i nal ar e notcurr ent l y on app ea l , w e m usttre atthese as ci vi l proceedi ng s f

or pu rposes of ou r r evi ew . H ow ever , the w ri tof error has been abol i shed i n ci vi l ca se s, and B on adon na’ s app l i ca t i on for aw ri tof error c oram n o b is is , th e r e f

o r e , th e im p r o p e rm e th o d to o b ta in r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e 1 9 8 5 c iv il cont em ptorder. B . M ot i on f

orR e c ons i de r a t i on B e c a us e w e l i be r a l l y c ons true pr o s e pl e a di ngs , B r ow n v. J ohns on, 387 F . 3d“I f the judgment entered is correct, wemay aff irm the district court on any leg al 4 grounds re g ardle ss of the grounds addressed, adopted or re jected by the district court.”Novak v. 7 1344, 1350 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , w e w i l l r e vi e w B ona donna ’ s pe t i t i on f ora w r i tof e r r orc or a m nobi s a s a m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on pur s ua ntt o R ul e 60 of the Fe d e r a l Ru l e s o f

Ci v i l Pr o c e d u r e . Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) a l l o w s a p a r ty t o b e r e l i e v e d f r o m a ju d g m e n t d u e to : ( 1 ) m is ta k e , in a d v e r te n c e , s u rp r is e o re x c u s a b le n e g le c t; ( 2 ) n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e w h ic h c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d e a r lie rw ith d u e d i l i g en ce; (3 ) frau d , m i srep resen t at i o n , o r o th er m i sco n d u cto f an ad v erse pa r ty ; ( 4) a voi d j udgm e nt ; ( 5) a j udgm e nttha tha s be e n s a t i s f i e d, r e l e a s e d, di s c ha r ge d, r e ve r s e d orva c a t e d; or( 6) a ny othe rr e a s on j us t i f y i ng r e l i e f

f r om the o p e r a tio n o f

th e ju d g m e n t. F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 ( b ) . H ow e ve r , m ot i ons f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o R ul e 60( b) m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n a r e a s ona bl e t i m e , “ a nd f

orr e a s ons ( 1) , ( 2) , a nd ( 3) notm or e tha n one y e a ra f t e rthe j udgm e nt , or de r , orpr oc e e di ng w a s e nt e r e d ort a ke n. ” I d. ; s e e a l s o G onz a l e z v. C r o s b y , ___ U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 6 4 1 , 2 6 5 0

– 5 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t R u le 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) r e lie f

is n o t a v a ilab le w h e n th e p la in tif f h a d n o t a c te d d ilig e n tly in pur s ui ng r e vi e w of

the i s s ue pr e vi ous l y ) . B ona donna ha s pr ovi de d no e xpl a na t i on f o rwh y h e h a s wa i t e d a l m o s ttwe n ty y e a r s t o r e q u e s tr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h u s , we co n clu d e th at th e d elay w as u n re as o n ab le an d , th er ef o re , aff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 4Irwin Yacht &Marine Corp., 986 F .2d 468, 470 (11th Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted). 8 I I I . CONCL US I ON B o n a d o n n a s o u g h t a w r it o f e r r o rc o r a m n o b is f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in or de rt o r e duc e the s e nt e nc e tha the i s c ur r e nt l y s e r vi ng. H ow e ve r , the w r i tof e r r or he se eks i s notavai l abl e i n ci vi l ca se s, and, because B on adon na has procee ded p ro s e , w e h a v e c o n s tru e d h is r e q u e s t a s a R u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . W e c onc l ude tha tB ona donna di d nots e e k r e l i e f w i thi n a r e a s ona bl e t i m e . B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y f

ound tha tB ona donna w a s note nt i t l e d t o a w r i tof e r r or cora m no bi s, w e AF F I RM .