United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of
the dismissal of this matter. After reviewing plaintiff's
motion in its entirety, the Court finds no grounds for
reconsidering its dismissal of this action. Therefore,
plaintiff's motion will be denied.
filed the instant action on November 6, 2017, alleging that
his rights were violated by a state family court judge in
2003, when the judge issued an order of protection barring
him from contact with his ex-wife and granting his ex-wife
custody of their child. In his request for relief, plaintiff
sought to void the order of protection and family court
complaint, plaintiff also remonstrated that he was unjustly
given a DWI without proper due process in September of 2003
in Camden County, Missouri. He petitioned this Court to have
his state criminal conviction overturned.
Memorandum and Order accompanying the November 9, 2017, Order
of Dismissal, the Court noted that plaintiff's complaint
was substantially similar to several previous cases plaintiff
had brought before the Court, all of which were dismissed
pre-service. E.g., Jeep v. Government of the United
States, 4:13-CV-2490 RWS (E.D. Mo.) (listing previous
cases), in addition to, Jeep v. Government of the United
States, No. 4:14-CV-2009 DDN (E.D. Mo); Jeep v.
Government of the United States, No. 4:15-CV-1533 HEA
(E.D. Mo); Jeep v. Government of the United States,
No. 4:16-V-0810 CDP (E.D. Mo).
Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over family court
matters. See Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th
Cir. 1994) (“The domestic relations exception . . .
divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action
for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or
child custody.”). Additionally, the Court concluded
that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn plaintiff's
state court conviction for DWI. As a result, plaintiff's
claims relating to these issues were subject to dismissal
under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
remainder of plaintiff's claims were dismissed as
frivolous and malicious, as it was clear from the nature of
plaintiff's allegations and the list of plaintiff's
defendants that his purpose was to harass the named judicial
and governmental defendants rather than vindicate a
cognizable legal right.
motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that this Court
has the ability, pursuant to a writ of error coram nobis and
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to remand his
family law claims to state court for
“resettlement” and to “expunge” his
DWI conviction from his record. Plaintiff is incorrect.
Courts have authority to issue a writ of error coram nobis
under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
“[T]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority
to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute.
Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue
at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act,
that is controlling.” Carlisle v. U.S., 517
U.S. 416, 429 (1996). Coram nobis is an “extraordinary
remedy, ” and should only be used in extraordinary
circumstances.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for the
Northern Dist. of California, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).
nobis is not intended to be a substitute for proceedings
brought pursuant to habeas corpus. See U.S. v.
Noske, 235 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir. 2000); United
States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954). In fact, a
writ of error coram nobis is available only when the
applicant is not in custody. U.S. v. Esogbue, 357
F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Torres, 282
F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir. 2002). Moreover, if the movant
could have brought his claims in habeas corpus in a prior
proceeding, the writ of error coram nobis is unavailable to
him. Noske, 235 F.3d at 406; Morgan 346
U.S. at 511.
is no doubt plaintiff could have filed a direct appeal and
state post-conviction proceedings, as well as a federal
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to
overturn his 2003 DWI conviction and sentence. Thus, coram
nobis is not an appropriate remedy for plaintiff in relation
to his DWI conviction.
as was explained to plaintiff in the Court's prior
Memorandum and Order, state family courts have jurisdiction
over child custody and divorce proceedings. As
plaintiff's child custody proceedings cannot be heard in
this Court, his claims ...