JAMES
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James filed a motion to alter or amend judgment in a civil case, but the district court rejected it because no judgment had been entered in the civil proceeding and because James's underlying motion for a writ of coram nobis should have been filed in the original criminal case, not as a separate civil action.
Rule 59(e) is inapplicable because the court did not enter judgment in the civil case and did not adjudicate James's claim. Controlling law requires that a motion for a writ of coram nobis must be filed in the criminal case. If James disagrees with Judge Steele's decision, his remedy is to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.
“Rule 59(e) is thus inapposite. What is more, James's motion does not demonstrate any error. The Court did not, as James claims, "keep[] him away from the court."”
The court's rejection of James's procedural argument and assertion that he was improperly denied access to courts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlphonso James, Sr. filed a motion for a writ of coram nobis as an independent civil action (Case No. 2:25-cv-00419-SPC-KCD) rather than in his origin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Alphonso James, Sr.’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 3). James improperly filed a motion for a writ of coram nobis as an independent action separate from the subject criminal case. The court entered an order directing the clerk to docket the motion in United States v. James, Case No. 2:95-cr-33-JES-1 and close this case. Senior District Judge John E. Steele has since denied the motion. James asks the Court to “alter or amend the judgment” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). But the Court did not enter judgment in this case because it did not adjudicate James’s claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). Rule 59(e) is thus inapposite. What is more, James’s motion does not demonstrate any error. The Court did not, as James claims, “keep[] him away from the court.” Controlling case law dictates that a motion for a writ of coram nobis must be filed in the criminal case. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 505 n.4 (1954). If James disagrees with Judge Steele’s adjudication of his claim, he may appeal that decision to the Eleventh Circuit. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 9, 2025.
, ites WbLataathe 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
SA: FTMP-1 ec. all parties