Robert Calvin Craig, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Tom C. Martin, Respondent-appellee, 76 F.3d 392 (10th Cir. 1996)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.² 

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Mr. Craig, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651. Mr. Craig is challenging a state court conviction, after dismissal of an earlier habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. It is well settled that a federal court has no jurisdiction via a writ of error coram nobis to attack a state criminal judgment. See Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982); Blake v. Florida, 395 F.2d 758, 758-59 (5th Cir. 1968). Construing the pleadings liberally as a 2254 petition, the petition is successive given the prior proceedings. See Rule 9(b), Rules Governing 2254 Proceedings.

The district court dismissed an earlier 2254 petition in favor of an exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the Western District of North Carolina. Mr. Craig appealed, but later withdrew his appeal. We review the district court's decision not to entertain the claim at this time for an abuse of discretion. Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995). Rather than filing in the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Craig has filed this action. Mr. Craig has not demonstrated that the "ends of justice" would be served by a redetermination of his petition by the Western District of Oklahoma. See Parks v. Reynolds, 958 F.2d 989, 994 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 928 (1992). See also McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991) (ends of justice exception requires showing that constitutional error probably resulted in conviction of one factually innocent).