Teddy Chiquito v. United States of America; Navajo Police

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
TEDDY CHIQUITO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
NAVAJO POLICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-2056
(D.C. Nos. 1:18-CV-00963-KWR-SCY &
1:03-CR-00982-MCA-1)
(D. N.M.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Petitioner Teddy Chiquito filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis under 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a) to void his criminal conviction. The district court denied his
petition, so Petitioner appealed. 1 Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1 For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude this
appeal is not taken in good faith and that Petitioner has failed to show the existence
of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues
raised on appeal. Therefore, we deny Petitioner’s motion seeking leave to proceed in
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 1, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-2056 Document: 010110584795 Date Filed: 10/01/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
A jury convicted Petitioner on three counts relating to assaults he committed
within the Navajo Indian Reservation. Petitioner directly appealed his conviction; we
affirmed. United States v. Chiquito, 175 F. App’x. 215 (10th Cir. 2006)
(unpublished). Petitioner then moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court, following a magistrate judge’s
recommendations, dismissed Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner appealed the dismissal.
We denied a certificate of appealability.
Fourteen years after trial, Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of coram nobis
in the district court, raising four issues: (1) the district court did not try him as a law
enforcement officer; (2) his counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) his § 924(c)
conviction lacked an underlying crime of violence; and (4) aspects of his trial
violated the Navajo Bill of Rights and the Indian Civil Rights Act. The district court
denied his petition. Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of his claims, except
the crime of violence issue, which he does not challenge.
Writs of coram nobis originated in the common law courts of sixteenth-century
England. See United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 910 (2009). Although they
serve some valid purposes in today’s federal courts, they provide a limited remedy.
Id. at 911. Courts properly issue writs of coram nobis to correct factual errors about
the validity of the proceeding. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507 (1954).
But a court should grant a writ of coram nobis sparingly—only in “‘extraordinary’
forma pauperis on appeal. Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077,
1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), (e)(2)).
Appellate Case: 21-2056 Document: 010110584795 Date Filed: 10/01/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
cases presenting circumstances compelling its use ‘to achieve justice.’” Denedo, 556
U.S. at 911 (quoting Morgan, 346 U.S. at 511). Indeed, “it is difficult to conceive of
a situation in a federal criminal case today where a writ of coram nobis would be
necessary or appropriate.” Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996)
(citations and brackets omitted).
A court may not grant coram nobis relief where the petitioner previously
raised or could have raised the claim on direct appeal or in a collateral attack. United
States v. Miles, 923 F.3d 798, 804 (10th Cir. 2019). And if the petitioner raises a
new claim in his writ of coram nobis, he must first establish that he diligently
brought his claim to court. United States v. Tarango, 670 F. App’x. 981, 981 (10th
Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J.) (unpublished) (holding the petitioner did not diligently
pursue his claim because the facts underlying the claim occurred and were known to
him for at least thirteen years).
The district court denied the petition in part because Petitioner raised three of
the issues in prior actions. He raised the fact that the district court did not try him as
a law enforcement officer on direct appeal and raised both the ineffective assistance
of counsel and the crime of violence issues in his § 2255 motion. See Chiquito, 175
F. App’x. at 217; We agree with the district court. The fact that Petitioner
previously raised these alleged errors—that the district court did not try him as a law
enforcement officer and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance—bars coram
nobis relief. Miles, 923 F.3d at 804.
Appellate Case: 21-2056 Document: 010110584795 Date Filed: 10/01/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
This leaves only Petitioner’s claim that aspects of his trial violated the Navajo
Bill of Rights and the Indian Civil Rights Act. But we need not address that issue
because even if he adequately alleged such a violation, those facts occurred, and
Petitioner has known of them, since (at the latest) his trial in 2004. Yet he raised this
argument for the first time in 2018. Petitioner fails to show he could not have raised
this claim earlier or that he diligently pursued the claim. Under our body of
precedent, that lack of diligence forecloses his claim. Miles, 923 F.3d at 804;
Tarango, 670 F. App’x. at 981.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-2056 Document: 010110584795 Date Filed: 10/01/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --