Klein v. United States, 16-1081(L)

Eric A. Klein, convicted in 2005, filed coram nobis petitions in the Southern District of New York challenging aspects of his conviction; the district court denied relief and denied reconsideration in orders of Feb. 8 and Mar. 17, 2016.
Klein appealed the denial of coram nobis relief; the Second Circuit consolidated related appeals and reviewed the district court's denials for abuse of discretion.
The court framed coram nobis as an extraordinary remedy available only when habeas is unavailable (petitioner not in custody) and required a three‑part showing: compelling circumstances to achieve justice, sound reasons for earlier failure to seek relief, and continuing legal consequences from the conviction.
The Second Circuit found each of Klein's ten claims either procedurally barred, meritless, or both, and affirmed the district court's denial of coram nobis relief.
The opinion reiterates prior district‑court and Second Circuit orders restricting Klein from filing further motions in the criminal case without leave of court, and warns that further violations may result in sanctions, including a leave‑to‑file requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of coram nobis relief	Klein contended errors in his conviction justify coram nobis because he is no longer in custody	Govt argued coram nobis is extraordinary and Klein failed to satisfy its requirements	Denied — Klein did not meet coram nobis standards (compelling circumstances, sound reasons, continuing consequences)
Procedural default and timeliness of claims	Klein asserted sound reasons for delay and that earlier remedies were unavailable	Govt maintained claims were procedurally barred or waived and lacked merit	Denied — claims were largely procedurally barred or meritless
Standard of review for denial of coram nobis	Klein implicitly argued district court erred in its exercise of discretion	Govt argued district court acted within discretion; review is for abuse of discretion	Affirmed — Second Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion and found none
Enforcement of filing restrictions and sanctions	Klein continued to file motions despite prior bar and warnings	Govt supported enforcement and noted prior warnings and sanctions history	Court warned and reaffirmed restrictions; further violations may prompt sanctions including leave‑to‑file requirements

Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) (sets coram nobis three‑part test and describes remedy as extraordinary)
Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (coram nobis availability when habeas relief is unavailable; reiterates standards)
In re Martin‑Trigona, 9 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 1993) (permits leave‑to‑file restrictions for vexatious litigants)
Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (approves restrictive measures against abusive litigants)
United States v. Klein, [citation="297 Fed. App'x 19"] (2d Cir. 2008) (prior Second Circuit order affirming filing restrictions and noting Klein’s repetitious litigation)