The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRUCE ANTHONY BROWN, )
) Civil Action No. 20 – 349
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
)
COMMONWEALTH OF )
PENNSYLVANIA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner has filed what is titled “Writ of Coram Nobis” (ECF No. 39). In this document,
Petitioner again claims that he never received the Court’s Order dated June 2, 2021, which
dismissed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as untimely, and he argues that he should therefore
have the right to respond to it by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
or 60. Petitioner also appears to request that the Court issue a certificate of appealability.
First, it is noted that a petition for writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a
criminal conviction for a person who is no longer “in custody” and therefore cannot seek habeas
relief. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 345 n.1 (2013). It is not available to a prisoner, like
Petitioner, who is in custody. See Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157, 159 (3d Cir. 2012);
Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Baptiste, 223 F.3d 188,
189-90 (3d Cir. 2000). Therefore, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to collaterally attack his
criminal conviction by way of a petition for writ of coram nobis, his motion is denied.
Petitioner asserts that he should have the right to respond to the Court’s Order dismissing his
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as untimely because he never received it. On September 14,
2022, this Court issued an Order denying what was construed as a motion for reconsideration that
was filed by Petitioner, and in that Order the Court specifically found that Petitioner had failed to set
forth a sufficient basis for this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e),
notwithstanding the untimely nature of Petitioner’s motion due to his alleged failure to recetve the
Court’s Order dated June 2, 2021. See ECF No. 36. It also found that Petitioner had failed to set
forth a sufficient basis for relief under Rule 60(b). See ECF No. 36. Petitioner is not barred from
filing a motion requesting relief under any particular rule or statute, but his current motion, like his
others, fails to set forth a sufficient basis for this Court to grant him any form of relief.
Finally, to the extent Petitioner is requesting that this Court issue a certificate of
appealability, his request is denied as moot because this Court already denied a certificate of
appealability in its Order dated June 2, 2021. See ECF No. 33. To the extent Petitioner is
requesting reconsideration of that ruling, his motion is also denied because Petitioner has failed to
show any sufficient basis that would justify reconsideration of the denial of a certificate of
appealability.
AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2022,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s motion titled
“Writ of Coram Nobis” (ECF No. 39) is DENIED. _¢
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge
Ce: — Bruce Anthony Brown
KD-4333
SCI Forest
P.O. Box 945
286 Woodland Drive
Marienville, PA 16239
Counsel of Record
(via CM/ECF electronic mail)