USA V. RASHEEN FAIRLY, No. 16-16889 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16889 D.C. Nos. 1:15-cv-00290-LJO 1:95-cr-05193-DAD v. MEMORANDUM* RASHEEN D. FAIRLY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Rasheen D. Fairly appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a coram nobis * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). petition. See Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of Fairly’s state conviction. See Hensley v. Municipal Court, 453 F.2d 1252, 1252 n.2 (9th Cir. 1972) (“Coram nobis lies only to challenge errors occurring in the same court.”), rev’d on other grounds, 411 U.S. 345 (1973); see also Madigan v. Wells, 224 F.2d 577, 578 n.2 (9th Cir. 1955) (“[T]he writ can issue, if at all, only in aid of the jurisdiction of the … court in which the conviction was had.”) AFFIRMED. 2 16-16889
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.
