Harry Katz v. United States, No. 12-1485 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case. Katz could not use a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to raise the same claims he had previously litigated in a Section 2255 habeas petition.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1485 ___________________________ Harry Meyer Katz lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 31, 2012 Filed: November 30, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Former federal inmate Harry Katz appeals the district court s1 denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We agree with the court that Katz may not 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. raise in a coram nobis petition the same claims that he previously litigated in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 338 (1992) (successive habeas petition raising identical grounds as prior petition must generally be dismissed); United States v. Comacho-Bordes, 94 F.3d 1168, 1173 (8th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis relief is substantially equivalent to habeas relief, and principles barring successive petitions apply); Azzone v. United States, 341 F.2d 417, 418-19 (8th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (coram nobis petitioner is not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal or in § 2255 motion). We also find that the district court did not err in denying the petition without a hearing or discovery. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
