697 F. App'x 601
10th Cir.2017Background
- Alexander Christian Miles filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in district court challenging his federal conviction after he was released from federal custody (released Feb. 2013, no supervised release).
- The district court recharacterized Miles’ coram nobis petition as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because such motions require prior authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
- The district court’s recharacterization triggered the requirement for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to appeal, per 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and related precedent.
- Miles appealed, arguing he was not in custody and therefore § 2255 did not apply, and that a COA was not required to appeal a coram nobis dismissal.
- The United States conceded Miles was out of custody, that the district court erred in recharacterizing the pleading as § 2255, and that a COA was not required.
- The Tenth Circuit concluded it had jurisdiction without a COA, reversed the district court’s dismissal, and remanded for consideration of the coram nobis petition on the proper legal standards (expressing no view on merits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly recharacterized coram nobis petition as a second/successive § 2255 motion | Miles: He was released from custody, so § 2255 does not apply; petition is coram nobis | United States/district court: Treated petition as successive § 2255 requiring authorization | Court: Recharacterization was erroneous because Miles was not in custody; coram nobis is the proper vehicle |
| Whether a COA is required to appeal dismissal of a coram nobis petition | Miles: No COA required for coram nobis appeal | United States initially: COA needed if treated as § 2255; later conceded no COA required | Court: COA not required here; appellate jurisdiction exists without COA |
| Whether the appeal may proceed without prior authorization under § 2244(b)(3)(A) | Miles: No authorization needed because petition is coram nobis, not § 2255 | District court: Required prior authorization as if § 2255 | Court: No authorization required because petition was mischaracterized as § 2255 |
| Remedy for erroneous dismissal based on mischaracterization | Miles: Dismissal improper; remand to consider coram nobis on merits | District court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Court: Reverse dismissal and remand for district court to rule under correct standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Rawlins v. Kansas, 714 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2013) (§ 2255 relief available only to a federal prisoner in custody)
- United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008) (COA requirement for appeals from § 2255 orders)
- United States v. Carpenter, [citation="598 F. App'x 576"] (10th Cir. 2015) (district court erred recharacterizing coram nobis as § 2255 when petitioner was not in custody; COA not required)