IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50225
Conference Calendar
JUAN ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, also known as Juan Roberto
Rodriguez,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-890-OG
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Robert Rodriguez, Texas prisoner #570369, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his
petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his 1990
arson conviction, which the district court construed as a 28
U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Rodriguez argues that the
district court erred in: treating his petition for a writ of
coram nobis as a habeas petition; failing to consider the
substance of his claims; and failing to award him coram nobis
relief.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-50225
-2-
A COA is not required for an appeal from the denial of a
petition for a writ of coram nobis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1);
United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 429 n.32 (5th Cir. 1998)
(refusing to apply habeas law to a coram nobis case). However,
“[i]t is well settled that the writ of error coram nobis is not
available in federal court to attack state criminal judgments.”
Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir. 1982). Since
Rodriguez’s petition challenged the validity of his state arson
conviction, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant him
coram nobis relief and thus did not err in refusing to construe
his petition as seeking such relief. To the extent that
Rodriguez is challenging the district court’s denial of coram
nobis relief, this appeal is DISMISSED.
To the extent that Rodriguez is challenging the district
court’s denial of habeas corpus relief, he has failed to
demonstrate that the district court’s rejection on the merits of
his claims of infirmities in the state habeas proceedings and
procedural dismissal of his remaining claims were debatable or
incorrect. See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).
Rodriguez’s motions for a COA, for appointment of appellate
counsel, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are
DENIED.