Jonathan Wayne Mundo v. State, 5:18-cv-02204

Petitioner Jonathan Wayne Mundo, a Nevada prisoner, filed a Motion for Writ of Error Coram Nobis in this Court challenging his 2012 California convictions for two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of escape.
Mundo completed his California sentence in 2016 and was extradited to Nevada, where he is serving a 2012 Nevada conviction sentence.
The Petition alleges a Fourth Amendment violation: a California detective exceeded a warrant’s scope and turned over petitioner’s cell-phone records to a Henderson, Nevada detective, and seeks vacatur of the robbery convictions.
Mundo previously filed a federal habeas petition in this district in 2016 challenging the same California conviction; that petition was dismissed with prejudice as untimely under AEDPA, and no certificate of appealability was granted.
The district court construed the filing as coram nobis (and alternatively as a §2254 petition or a Rule 60(b) motion) and dismissed it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and as a successive habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of coram nobis in federal court to attack a state conviction	Mundo seeks coram nobis to vacate state convictions based on alleged Fourth Amendment error	Coram nobis relief cannot be granted by federal courts to challenge state court judgments	Denied — coram nobis unavailable in federal court to attack state convictions
Proper forum for coram nobis relief	Mundo asks this court to issue coram nobis relief for the California court judgment	Coram nobis must be sought in the court that entered the judgment being attacked	Denied — coram nobis must be sought in the rendering court
Construing petition as §2254 habeas: successive-petition bar	Mundo contends AEDPA time bars earlier relief; seeks relief now	Prior habeas dismissal on AEDPA timeliness is an adjudication on the merits; petitioner must obtain Ninth Circuit authorization before filing a successive §2254 petition	Dismissed — petition treated as successive habeas and unauthorized, so district court lacks jurisdiction
Construing filing as Rule 60(b) motion	Mundo frames motion as relief from prior judgment	Rule 60(b) cannot be used to attack state court judgments in federal court; substantive Fourth Amendment attack is a successive habeas claim per Gonzalez v. Crosby	Dismissed — treated as successive habeas or otherwise unavailable, so relief denied

Casas-Castrillon v. Warden, [citation="265 F. App'x 639"] (9th Cir. 2008) (coram nobis relief not available in federal court to attack state convictions)
Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 455 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2006) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue coram nobis to set aside state-court judgments)
Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716 (3d Cir. 2003) (same)
Hensley v. Municipal Court, 453 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1972) (cannot use federal coram nobis to challenge state proceedings)
United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (coram nobis is a remedy in the original criminal case)
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954) (groundwork for modern coram nobis principles)
Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 2001) (definition of successive habeas claims)
McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (statute-of-limitations dismissal is on the merits and makes later petitions successive)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (Rule 60(b) motions that assert substantive habeas claims are treated as successive petitions)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (U.S. 2007) (district court lacks jurisdiction over unauthorized successive habeas petitions)
Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1989) (habeas "in custody" requirement — sentence fully expired means no §2254 jurisdiction)