KOSCH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

D. New Jersey

KOSCH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

DecidedJuly 12, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-03413

StatusUnknown

This text of KOSCH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY (KOSCH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KOSCH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, (D.N.J. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ROBERT J. KOSCH, JR., : : Civil Action No. 22-3413 (CCC) Petitioner, : : v. : OPINION : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF : THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, : : Respondent. : : Pro se petitioner Robert J. Kosch, Jr. seeks a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to vacate his state court conviction. ECF No. 1. Before the Court are Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 1-1), and motion to expedite review (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Petition sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction and deny the IFP application and motion to expedite as moot. The writ of error coram nobis is an “infrequent” and “extraordinary” form of relief reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1059 (3d Cir. 1988); United States v. Gross, 614 F.2d 365, 368 (3d Cir. 1980) (per curiam). “Only where there are errors of fact of ‘the most fundamental kind, that is, such as to render the proceeding itself irregular and invalid,’ can redress be had.” Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 106. Such applications may be brought by a petitioner after his sentence has been served, see Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003), and are used to attack those rare convictions that are both invalid and have continuing post-custodial consequences, see Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 105–06. However, coram nobis is not available in a federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment. Obado, 328 F.3d at 718. Rather, “[o]nly the court that handed down the [wrongful] judgment of conviction . . . may entertain . . . a [coram nobis] petition.” Goodman v. United States, 140 F. App’x 436, 437 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Obado, 328 F.3d at 718). Here, the Petition challenges a state criminal judgment. See ECF No. 1-3. Accordingly, only the state court that entered Petitioner’s judgment of conviction may render coram nobis relief. See Obado, 328 F.3d at 718; Goodman, 140 F. App’x at 437. Therefore, the Court will deny the Petition

for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to seeking the same in the state forum. The Court will also deny Petitioner’s IFP application and motion to expedite as moot. An appropriate order follows.

s/ Claire C. Cecchi Date: July 12, 2022 Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ROBERT J. KOSCH, JR., : : Civil Action No. 22-3413 (CCC) Petitioner, : : v. : OPINION : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF : THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, : : Respondent. : : Pro se petitioner Robert J. Kosch, Jr. seeks a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to vacate his state court conviction. ECF No. 1. Before the Court are Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 1-1), and motion to expedite review (ECF No. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss the Petition sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction and deny the IFP application and motion to expedite as moot. The writ of error coram nobis is an “infrequent” and “extraordinary” form of relief reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Osser, 864 F.2d 1056, 1059 (3d Cir. 1988); United States v. Gross, 614 F.2d 365, 368 (3d Cir. 1980) (per curiam). “Only where there are errors of fact of ‘the most fundamental kind, that is, such as to render the proceeding itself irregular and invalid,’ can redress be had.” Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 106. Such applications may be brought by a petitioner after his sentence has been served, see Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003), and are used to attack those rare convictions that are both invalid and have continuing post-custodial consequences, see Stoneman, 870 F.2d at 105–06. However, coram nobis is not available in a federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment. Obado, 328 F.3d at 718. Rather, “[o]nly the court that handed down the [wrongful] judgment of conviction . . . may entertain . . . a [coram nobis] petition.” Goodman v. United States, 140 F. App’x 436, 437 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Obado, 328 F.3d at 718). Here, the Petition challenges a state criminal judgment. See ECF No. 1-3. Accordingly, only the state court that entered Petitioner’s judgment of conviction may render coram nobis relief. See Obado, 328 F.3d at 718; Goodman, 140 F. App’x at 437. Therefore, the Court will deny the Petition

for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to seeking the same in the state forum. The Court will also deny Petitioner’s IFP application and motion to expedite as moot. An appropriate order follows.

s/ Claire C. Cecchi Date: July 12, 2022 Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

KOSCH v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kosch-v-the-attorney-general-of-the-state-of-new-jersey-njd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack