Lindberg v. Assam

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

LENA MARIE LINDBERG, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Misc. No. 23-0096 (UNA)

)

BRUCE LEE ASSAM, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis* and Amended** Motion for Writ of Error Coram Nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)” (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons discussed below, DENIES the petition.

“A petition for a writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person . . . who is no longer ‘in custody’ and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241.” Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 345 n.1 (2013). The Court may grant coram nobis relief only in “extraordinary cases” where it is necessary “to achieve justice.” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Coram nobis may be used to redress “fundamental error[s]” in criminal proceedings, such as violations of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Id. (citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507, 513 (1954)). “[C]oram nobis is not ‘a free pass for attacking criminal judgments long

2

after they have become final.’” United States v. Faison, 956 F. Supp. 2d 267, 270 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1004 (9th Cir. 2007)).

“A petitioner seeking a writ of coram nobis must show that (1) a more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the error is of the most fundamental character.” Id. at 269 (quoting United States v. Hansen, 906 F. Supp. 688, 692–93 (D.D.C. 1995)). The Court is unable to determine from the petition whether petitioner has been convicted of a crime and, if so, in what State(s). And even if the petitioner has been convicted of a crime and met the above criteria, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the writ. “[T]he All Writs Act and the extraordinary relief the statute authorizes are not a source of subject-matter jurisdiction,” Denedo, 556 U.S. at 913, and where a conviction at issue “is the result of a state court judgment, . . . a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” Stoller v. United States, 216 F. Supp. 3d 171, 175 (D.D.C. 2016) (emphasis in original)), aff’d, 697 F. App’x 10 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October 3, 2023 DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge