Opinion ID: 866197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Audita Querela

Text: Audita querela is an ancient common law writ, which translated means “the complaint having been heard.” Black’s Law Dictionary 150 (9th ed. 2009). According to Blackstone, audita querela originally issued following actions for debt where a defendant, against whom judgment [was] recovered, and who [was] therefore in danger of execution [on that judgment], or perhaps actually in execution, may be relieved upon good matter of discharge, which has happened since the judgment: [such as situations in which] the plaintiff hath given [the judgment debtor] a general release; or if the [judgment debtor] hath paid the debt to the plaintiff, without procuring the satisfaction to be entered on the record. 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries –06. The writ was eventually extended to “like cases” where post-judgment circumstances provided the defendant “good matter to plead.” Id. at . The upshot was that some unanticipated circumstance arising post-judgment made continuing enforcement of the judgment unfair. “It would be contrary to justice,” according to common law practice, for a judgment to be enforced “because of matters arising subsequent to the rendition thereof, or because of prior existing defenses which were not available to the -6- judgment debtor in the original suit, by reason of the judgment creditor’s fraudulent conduct, or through circumstances over which the judgment debtor had no control.” See 2 Ruling Case Law 1159 (William M. McKinney & Burdett A. Rich eds., 1914). The writ has been applied in federal court actions. In 1946, for example, we described audita querela as the historical basis for a court’s inherent power to “afford relief in behalf of one against whom execution had been issued or was about to be issued upon a judgment, which it would be contrary to justice to allow to be enforced, because of matters arising subsequent to the rendition thereof.” Oliver v. City of Shattuck ex rel. Versluis, 157 F.2d 150, 153 (10th Cir. 1946); cf. United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245 n.6 (10th Cir. 2002) (“a writ of audita querela is used to challenge a judgment that was correct at the time rendered but which is rendered infirm by matters which arise after its rendition” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(e) abolished the writ of audita querela in federal civil actions soon after we handed down our Oliver decision. 3 Audita querela still receives attention, however, in the immigration context. Immigrants facing deportation on account of their criminal convictions have on occasion attempted to use audita querela to argue that deportation would be an unduly 3 What is now Rule 60(e) began as part of Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, Committee Note to 1946 Amendment. -7- harsh consequence in light of mitigating circumstances. See Ejelonu v. INS, 355 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2004), vacated and reh’g en banc granted (July 27, 2004), appeal dismissed (Oct. 18, 2004); Doe v. INS, 120 F.3d 200 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. LaPlante, 57 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 962 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Reyes, 945 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Holder, 936 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Ayala, 894 F.2d 425, 428 (D.C. Cir. 1990). With the exception of the Sixth Circuit’s since-vacated Ejelonu decision, each of these immigration cases concludes that audita querela, if available, must be brought on “legal” rather than “equitable” grounds. In other words, the petitioner must show something like an intervening change in law, see Ayala, 894 F.2d at 429, rather than simply argue that the collateral consequences of the conviction have turned out to be unduly harsh. With this background, we turn to the other writ at issue here, coram nobis.