Bolin v. Newcomb

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Paul C. Bolin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denies his request for appointed counsel. The court recommends summary dismissal of his amended petition for a writ of error coram nobis, concluding that coram nobis cannot be used to challenge state-court proceedings and that the petition is instead a successive habeas challenge requiring Ninth Circuit authorization.

Holdings

1. A writ of error coram nobis in federal court is unavailable to challenge errors occurring in a state-court criminal proceeding.
2. A petition styled as coram nobis is a second or successive § 2254 petition when its substance challenges a state conviction and raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on the merits in an earlier § 2254 petition.
3. The district court lacks jurisdiction over a second or successive challenge to a state conviction absent prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a federal writ of error coram nobis may be used to challenge alleged errors in a state-court criminal proceeding.
2. Whether the amended coram nobis petition was in substance a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
3. Whether the court had jurisdiction over the successive habeas challenge absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit.
4. Whether appointment of counsel should be granted after recommending dismissal.

Disposition

other