Opinion
Case No. 4:20-cv-203-WS-MJF
04-29-2020
VINODH RAGHUBIR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Vinodh Raghubir, DC# X92396, is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections currently confined at Taylor Correctional Institution in Perry, Florida. (Doc. 1). Raghubir seeks a writ of error coram nobis vacating his state court convictions in Orange County Circuit Court Case Numbers 2016-CF-1833 and 2016-CF-5231. (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 1 (identifying state court convictions at issue); Id. at 18 (demanding "immediate release from all custodies, restraints, detentions, collateral consequences" of those convictions)). The undersigned concludes that the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
This case was referred to the undersigned to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
I. Discussion
"A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy available to vacate a conviction when the petitioner has served his sentence and is no longer in custody. . . ." United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Because Raghubir is still in state custody, he is ineligible for coram nobis relief.
Even if Raghubir were no longer in custody, he cannot use a federal coram nobis petition to challenge his state convictions. Coram nobis "is not available in federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal judgment." Theriault v. Mississippi, 390 F.2d 657, 657 (5th Cir. 1968); Cavett v. Ellis, 578 F.2d 567, 569 n.4 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting that the writ of coram nobis is "unavailable to review state court decisions"); see also, e.g., Llovera-Linares v. Florida, 559 F. App'x 949 (11th Cir. 2014) (dismissing former state prisoner's coram nobis petition challenging his state court convictions).
The Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). --------
The undersigned declines to construe Raghubir's coram nobis petition as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, because Raghubir adamantly opposes this court construing his pleading as anything other than what he labeled it. (Doc. 1 at 2). In addition, Raghubir acknowledges that he is pursing habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, in Case Numbers 6:18cv1016-Orl-37DCI and 6:18cv1017-Orl-18-LRH. (Doc. 1 at 2).
II. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
1. The petition for writ of error coram nobis (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The clerk of court close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 29th day of April, 2020.
/s/ _________
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.