Court Opinion

ID: 9926298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 16:02:22.832072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.565277
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-7137                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                    1:23-mc-00096-UNA
                                                      Filed On: January 24, 2024

Lena Marie Lindberg,

             Appellant

      v.

Bruce Lee Assam, et al.,

             Appellees

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      BEFORE:       Henderson, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to adopt
records, and the motion to seal, it is

     ORDERED that the motion to adopt records be denied. Appellant has not
demonstrated that the records in her other cases are relevant to this appeal. It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal be denied. Appellant has not
overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. See
Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991). It is

        FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 3, 2023
order denying without prejudice appellant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis be
affirmed. The district court did not err by concluding that the petition, which suggested
that appellant had been detained by state authorities in Florida and/or Illinois, did not
identify any relevant criminal judgment, and that, to the extent the petition sought to
challenge a conviction resulting from a criminal judgment entered by a state court, the
court lacked jurisdiction. See United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 913 (2009)
(explaining that, to grant a writ of error coram nobis, a court “must have had statutory
                 United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-7137                                                 September Term, 2023

subject-matter jurisdiction over [the] original judgment of conviction”).

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                        Per Curiam

                                                          FOR THE COURT:
                                                          Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                  BY:     /s/
                                                          Daniel J. Reidy
                                                          Deputy Clerk

                                           Page 2