The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALEXANDER VUGLER,
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. 8:21-cv-1901-WFJ-AEP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Mr. Vugler’s, a federal prisoner, “emergency” petition for
the writ of error coram nobis (Doc. 1) in which he moves the Court to overturn his
conviction and immediately release him from incarceration. He argues that he is
entitled to this relief because the Court in which he was convicted lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over his case. He is serving a 168-month sentence on a conviction for
transporting child pornography entered in 2017. See United States v. Vugler, Case No.
14-cr-28-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.).
Federal courts may issue a writ of error coram nobis under the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651. The writ is an “extraordinary writ, limited to cases in which ‘no
statutory remedy is available or adequate.’” United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471,474-
75 (11th Cir. 1997). The writ is available only where the defendant has completed his
sentence and is no longer in custody as required for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
1
Brown, 117 F.3d at 475; United States v. Chaff, 269 F.App’x 878, 879 (11th Cir. 2008)
(“Because federal prisoners may make use of the statutory remedy of 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
coram nobis relief is unavailable to them.”).
Because Mr. Vugler is currently in federal custody serving his sentence, a writ
of error coram nobis is unavailable to him. A § 2255 motion is his exclusive remedy.
However, because he previously filed a § 2255 motion which was decided on the merits
(see Case No. 8:19-cv-258-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla), Doc.13), he must seek permission
from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive § 2255
motion. See Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 657, 661 (11th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, Mr. Vugler’s “emergency” petition for the writ of error coram
nobis (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk must close this case. To
the extent a certificate of appealability is required for the appeal of this Order, the
Court finds Mr. Vugler is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 12, 2021.
litho,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Alexander Vugler, pro se
Counsel of Record