Roberts v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT TACOMA

9 10 CHARLES HENRY ROBERTS, CASE NO. C24-5507JLR-TLF 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 13 Respondent. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United 17 States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke (R&R (Dkt. # 10)), and Petitioner Charles 18 Henry Roberts’s objections thereto (Objections (Dkt. # 11)). Respondent State of 19 Washington filed a response to Mr. Roberts’s objections. (Resp. (Dkt. # 12)). Having 20 carefully reviewed all of the foregoing, along with all other relevant documents, and the 21 governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 10) and 22 DISMISSES Mr. Roberts’s petition for writ of coram nobis with prejudice. 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

3 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court reviews de 4 novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written objection 5 is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 6 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). 8 III. DISCUSSION

9 Mr. Roberts filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis to vacate his 2015 10 Washington felony harassment convictions. (See generally Petition (Dkt. # 1); Judgment 11 (Dkt. # 1-4), at 1-2.) Mr. Roberts has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 12 to stay and abey his petition while he exhausts his state court remedies. (Dkt. ## 1, 3.) 13 The State avers that a stay is improper because the court lacks jurisdiction over Mr.

14 Roberts’s petition. (See generally Resp.) 15 Mr. Roberts objects to the Report and Recommendation asserting that denial and 16 dismissal of his petition is inappropriate because the issue of the court’s jurisdiction over 17 the case is “not settled and has not been fully litigated.” (Objections at 1.) Additionally, 18 Mr. Roberts argues that the All Writs Act authorizes the court to use a writ of coram

19 nobis to correct errors like those he alleges. (See id.) 20 The court has an “independent obligation to address sua sponte whether it has 21 subject matter jurisdiction” over Mr. Roberts’s case. See F.D.I.C. v. Davidyuk, No. 22 C13-1592JLR, 2014 WL 2893309, at *8 n.15 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2014) (citing 1 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004)). There is no 2 “uncertainty” about the court’s lack of jurisdiction over this case. (See Objections at 2.)

3 The writ of coram nobis “is not available in federal court to attack the judgment of [the] 4 state court.” Chiofar v. Schapira, No. C07-0244JCC, 2007 WL 3087147, at *6 n.2 (W.D. 5 Wash. Oct. 19, 2007) (first citing Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 455 F.3d 131, 133-34 (2d Cir. 6 2006); and then citing United States v. Tucor Int’l, Inc., 35 F. Supp.2d 1172 (N.D. Cal. 7 1998)). 8 Additionally, the All Writs Act—from which federal courts derive their power to

9 issue writs of error coram nobis—provides that federal courts “may issue all writs 10 necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the 11 usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (emphasis added); see also 12 Finkelstein, 455 F.3d at 134. Namely, the Act “does not confer jurisdiction on the federal 13 courts” and is always used “with reference to its common-law scope.” Finkelstein, 455

14 F.3d at 134 (first quoting Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002); 15 and then quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 508 (1954)). Federal courts 16 have historically used the writ to “correct errors within their own jurisdiction.” 17 Ogunwomoju v. United States, 512 F.3d 69, 75 (2d Cir. 2008). Mr. Roberts asks this 18 court to issue a writ to correct an alleged error in his state case. (See Objections at 1, 4-

19 5.) Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Roberts’s petition for a writ 20 of coram nobis. 21 // 22 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

3 (1) The court OVERRULES Mr. Roberts’s objections (Dkt. # 11) and ADOPTS 4 the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 10) in its entirety; 5 (2) The court DENIES and DISMISSES Mr. Roberts’s petition for writ of coram 6 nobis (Dkt. # 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 7 (3) The court DENIES Mr. Roberts’s motion to stay and abey his petition 8 (Dkt. # 3) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 5) as moot; and

9 (4) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Roberts, to 10 counsel for the State, and to Magistrate Judge Fricke. 11 Dated this 30th day of September, 2024. A 12 JAMES L. ROBART 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22