United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RUSSELL T. MATHIS, Petitioner,
U.S. GOVERNMENT, Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Russell Mathis [“Mathis”] is an inmate
incarcerated at the Crisp County Detention Center in Cordele,
Georgia. Before the court is Mathis' Petition for Coram
Nobis to Vacate Past Federal Criminal Records under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651. For relief, Mathis requests the court
“permanently seal all [his] past federal crime
records nationwide from all Fed. gov. use, sight, hearing of
it, in public and in courts be it crim[inal] fed. courts or
civil fed. courts.” Doc. 1 at 4.
states he was arrested in Auburn, Alabama, in 2004 on drug
charges. He maintains it was his first drug offense for which
he received an eighty-seven month prison term. After
completing service of this sentence in March of 2011, Mathis
states he served a three-year term of supervised release
which expired in March of 2014. Doc. 1 at 2.
court takes judicial notice of its own records which reflect
that on July 14, 2005, Mathis was sentenced to a concurrent
term of 87 months imprisonment following his April 11, 2005,
plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit a drug offense,
transportation of anhydrous ammonia across state lines,
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance,
and possession of a listed chemical. United States v.
Mathis, 3:05-CR-10-MEF (M.D. Ala. 2005). On June 14,
2012, this court transferred jurisdiction over Mathis'
supervised term of release to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3605. See Id. An examination of PACER (Public
Access to Court Electronic Records) reflects Mathis is
awaiting trial on drug offenses pending against him in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia. United States v. Mathis,
5:17-CR-13-MTT (M.D. Ga.).
federal court may issue a writ of error coram nobis pursuant
to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). United
States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000).
“A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy available to
vacate a conviction when the petitioner has served his
sentence and is no longer in custody....” United
States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709, 712 (11th Cir. 2002).
“[C]oram nobis relief is available after sentence has
been served because ‘the results of the conviction may
persist. Subsequent convictions may carry heavier penalties,
civil rights may be affected.' ” Id.
(quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 503,
512-13 (1954)). The finality of criminal convictions,
however, would be undermined by a “[r]outine grant of
coram nobis relief.” Id.; see Gilbert v.
United States, 640 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2011) (en
banc) (describing the finality of convictions as
“critically important” to our criminal justice
extent Mathis intends to seek a petition for coram nobis as
reflected in the style of this matter, it is due to be
denied. A writ of error coram nobis, is “an
extraordinary remedy of last resort available only in
compelling circumstances where necessary to achieve
justice.” Mills, 221 F.3d at 1203. The writ
may be invoked “to correct errors of the most
fundamental character; that is, such as rendered the
proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (noting that
coram nobis relief “was traditionally available only to
bring before the court factual errors material to the
validity and regularity of the legal proceeding itself, such
as the defendant's being under age or having died before
the verdict.” . . . As such, “it is difficult to
conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today
where [a writ of coram nobis] would be necessary or
appropriate.”); see also Lowery v. United
States, 956 F.2d 227, 229 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
Mathis is not seeking to vacate a conviction but requests his
criminal records be sealed to prevent their use by the
federal government in any federal criminal or civil action.
Mathis' request for relief provides no basis on which the
court could grant a writ of error coram nobis.The court
therefore concludes the petition is due to be denied.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the
petition for coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Doc. 1)
further ORDERED that on or before May 11,
2018, Petitioner may file an objection to the
Recommendation. Petitioner must specifically identify the
factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation
to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections to the Recommendation will not be considered.
to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of legal and factual
issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of
the party to challenge on appeal the district court's
order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions
accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds
of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1;