No. 20-1301

Kenneth Charles McNeil, aka Chip v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-19
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-2255 all-writs-act coram-nobis equitable-relief federal-courts federal-equity judicial-discretion statutory-interpretation united-states-v-morgan writ-of-relief
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-04-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the federal courts have the proper standard for granting coram nobis relief

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented for Review In 1954, this Court fashioned the modern writ of coram nobis, however, in preexisting and acknowledged conflicts, the federal appellate courts are divided over the proper standard for granting coram nobis relief. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides federal courts the authority to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” In Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. U.S. Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34, 48 (1985), the Court held, “[a]lthough that Act empowers federal courts to fashion extraordinary remedies when the need arises, it does not authorize them to issue ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears inconvenient or less appropriate.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether, and to what extent, United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) fashioned the writ of coram nobis to incorporate the former federal equity courts’ requirements for equitable relief? 2. After a writ has been fashioned, whether federal courts have the authority under the All Writs Act to refashion a writ whenever compliance with the fashioned writ appears inconvenient or less appropriate? 3. Whether, and to what extent, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rules apply to coram nobis proceedings? , ii

Docket Entries

2021-04-19
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2021-03-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-03-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 19, 2021)

Attorneys

Kenneth C. McNeil
Kenneth C. McNeil — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent