1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL R. SPENGLER, ) Case No. CV 19-6167-DOC (SP) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. ) SUMMARILY DISMISSING ) PETITION 14 ) POMONA SUPERIOR COURT OF ) 15 L.A. COUNTY, et al., ) ) 16 Respondents. ) ) 17 ) 18 19 On July 17, 2019, petitioner Michael R. Spengler, a California state pretrial 20 detainee, filed a Petition seeking a writ of error coram vobis or coram nobis 21 (“Petition”). Petitioner seeks relief from a “homicide gun case” from 2013 or 22 2014, for which he is no longer in custody. Petitioner also states he seeks relief on 23 the grounds of insanity, a coerced guilty plea, a third-party confession, and the lack 24 of a search warrant. 25 On August 8, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the 26 Petition Should Not be Dismissed (“OSC”). Petitioner was ordered to show cause 27 why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since he may not 28 1 obtain relief from a state court judgment in federal court by way of a coram vobis 2 or coram nobis petition, and since habeas relief under

is not 3 available to persons like petitioner who are no longer in custody on the conviction 4 to be challenged. On September 9, 2019, petitioner filed a Reply to the OSC, but 5 failed to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. Instead, petitioner 6 recognized that he is no longer in custody on the conviction he seeks to challenge 7 and conceded that his Petition should be dismissed, although he requested the 8 dismissal be without prejudice. The Court likewise concludes the Petition must be 9 dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition for the following 10 reasons. 11 First, petitioner may not obtain relief in this federal court from the state 12 court judgment against him by way of a coram vobis or coram nobis petition. 13 Common law writs such as audita querela, coram nobis, and coram vobis “survive 14 ‘only to the extent that they fill “gaps” in the current systems of postconviction 15 relief.’” Carrington v. U.S.,

(9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 16 “Coram nobis relief is not available in federal court to attack a state court 17 conviction.” Casas-Castrillion v. Warden San Diego, Correctional Facility, 265

(9th Cir. 2008). A “[coram nobis] writ may be issued by a federal 19 court only with respect to a federal criminal sentence.” Brandon v. Los Angeles 20 County Superior Court,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (citing 21 Yasui v. U.S.,

(9th Cir. 1985)); see also Hensley v. Municipal 22 Court,

, 1252 n.2 (9th Cir. 1972) (“We are unable to treat this 23 [habeas] petition as one seeking coram nobis relief because [the petitioner] seeks to 24 challenge a state court proceeding in federal court. Coram nobis lies only to 25 challenge errors occurring in the same court.”), reversed on other grounds, 411

,

,

(1973). 27 The United States Code explicitly provides that state prisoners may seek 28 1 relief from a state court judgment by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2 federal court. See

(a). Although federal courts retain the power 3 to grant common law writs in certain circumstances to persons convicted in federal 4 court, they lack jurisdiction to issue such writs with respect to state court criminal 5 judgments. Rawlins v. Kansas,

(10th Cir. 2013); see also 6 Garner v. California,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2012) (“As the 7 Petition challenges a California state court conviction and sentence, coram nobis 8 relief is unavailable in this federal court.”). Thus, if petitioner wished to seek relief 9 from his state court conviction in this federal court, he could only do so through a 10 habeas petition filed under

. See Brandon,

, at 11 *2 (finding court had no power to grant coram nobis relief to petitioner’s state 12 conviction because his federal remedy was provided by

). 13 The time to obtain relief under § 2254 is not, however, without limit. 14 Among other things, a petitioner may seek habeas relief under

15 only if he is contending he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 16 treaties of the United States. The Supreme Court has interpreted § 2254(a) “as 17 requiring that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or 18 sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook,

,

,

(1989) (noting that the “in 20 custody” requirement is jurisdictional). Although the petitioner need not 21 necessarily be physically confined in order to file a habeas petition, he must still be 22 under a criminal sentence that has not yet expired, such as on parole. Id. at 491-92. 23 Here, based on the Petition and his response to the OSC, petitioner does not 24 dispute that he is no longer in custody on the conviction he seeks to challenge as is 25 required to obtain habeas relief. See Reply at 3-4; Petition at 6. Petitioner states he 26 is no longer in custody for the “homicide gun case” from which he seeks relief 27 since he took a deal, under which he served one year and six months at Wasco 28 1 || State Prison and his parole related to this case “expired.” Jd.; Reply at 3-4. 2 || Moreover, petitioner concedes his Petition should be dismissed because he is no 3 || longer in custody on the conviction he seeks to challenge. See id. at 4. Therefore, 4 || construing the Petition as a § 2254 habeas petition would be futile. See Siddiqi v. 5 || Supreme Court of California,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) 6 || (finding that if the court were to construe the coram nobis petition as a habeas 7 || petition, the petition would have to be dismissed because the petitioner had not 8 || shown he was in custody). 9 In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the instant Petition for a writ of 10 || coram vobis or coram nobis, and would lack jurisdiction were the Petition 11 || construed as one for habeas relief under

. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 13 || dismissing the Petition and this action without prejudice. 14 15 16 || DATED: November 22 2019 17 Abit 0 Cust 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 0 Presented by: 21 LR 22 SHERI PYM 23 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28