02-1412 Godoski v. U.S.

Listen to this article

“[C]oram nobis is used only in those rare situations when the defendant is no longer ‘in custody’ (rendering §2255 unavailable) yet collateral relief remains imperative to deal with lingering civil disabilities. … A person whose incarceration lies in the future is in custody and has full access to §2255. … The premise of coram nobis is unsatisfied.

“Counsel insists that coram nobis should be available more broadly and may be used whenever no other relief is available. Yet coram nobis is a common-law writ, and it is entirely inappropriate for the judiciary to invoke the common law to override limitations enacted by Congress, such as the period of limitations in §2255. The Supreme Court made exactly this point in Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996), another case in which a criminal defendant who missed a deadline tried to use coram nobis to obtain relief belatedly. The Justices replied: ‘[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.’ Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985).

“[A]fter Carlisle it is not possible to change the source of authority to grant relief by changing the caption on a piece of paper. To say that a claim arises under §1651 does not make it so, any more than calling a donkey’s tail a ‘leg’ gives the animal five legs. No matter what its caption, a motion is under §2255 if it falls within the description of §2255”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Easterbrook, J.