United States v. Miguel Adolf Valdez-Pacheco

Citations: 237 F.3d 1077; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 797; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 640; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 851; 2000 WL 33122836Docket: 00-30006

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 23, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Miguel Adolf Valdez-Pacheco appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela, challenging his 1989 conviction on multiple drug-trafficking counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He received a 360-month sentence, which was affirmed on appeal except for the conspiracy count, which was remanded for a stay on judgment and sentencing. Valdez has previously filed multiple motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations, all of which were denied.

In his latest petition for a writ of audita querela, Valdez contested the district court's jurisdiction to impose an enhanced sentence, citing the government's failure to file necessary prior conviction information. He also reiterated his sufficiency of evidence and double jeopardy claims, previously addressed in his direct appeal. The district court denied the petition, stating that Valdez did not present new circumstances warranting a defense or discharge.

On appeal, Valdez argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition. However, the government asserts that the dismissal was appropriate since a federal prisoner cannot use audita querela to raise claims that could be addressed through a § 2255 motion. The court concurs with the government's position and affirms the district court's dismissal of Valdez's petition.

The court reviews de novo whether a federal prisoner can file a petition for a writ of audita querela under the All Writs Act to challenge a conviction and sentence. Historically, audita querela allowed judgment debtors to seek equitable relief from legal judgments based on defenses arising post-judgment, but it has been abolished in civil cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, it may still exist in the federal criminal context, as indicated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Morgan, which stated that Rule 60(b) does not eliminate a federal prisoner's right to petition for common law writs like coram nobis when these petitions pertain to the original criminal case. The court noted that common law writs are available to address gaps in federal post-conviction relief systems, as established in Morgan and reiterated in subsequent cases. Other circuits have ruled that audita querela cannot be used to challenge a conviction or sentence if the issues could be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Consequently, the court concludes that a federal prisoner cannot challenge a conviction or sentence via audita querela if the claims can be addressed under § 2255, as there would be no gap in post-conviction remedies to justify its use.

Valdez's argument for the availability of audita querela is rejected due to the restrictions imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which limits a prisoner's ability to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. These statutory limitations cannot be bypassed by claiming a gap in post-conviction remedies that should be addressed by common law writs. Relevant case law, including Kimberlin and In re Davenport, supports that even if AEDPA's limitations prevent the use of 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2255, it does not imply that prisoners may circumvent these restrictions by merely altering the statutory references in their motions. Furthermore, the court emphasizes that a 2255 motion remains a viable option for Valdez's claims, thus making audita querela unavailable. The district court's denial of his petition is affirmed. The panel also noted that the case was suitable for decision without oral argument and referenced relevant statutory provisions regarding prior convictions and the requirements for successive motions under 2255. While the court does not rule out the possibility of gaps for audita querela, it clarifies that AEDPA's limitations do not equate to a suspension of the writ, and 2255 includes its own provisions for habeas corpus petitions under specific circumstances.