Windeknecht v. State of Missouri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LARRY E. WINDEKNECHT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:25-cv-01183-JAR
)
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is self-represented Petitioner’s “All Writ of Coram Nobis Seeking Relief
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) Section” (also “Petition”), doc. 1, Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees, doc. 2, and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, doc. 3. For
the reasons explained below, the Court dismisses the Petition and denies Petitioner’s Application
and Motion as moot.
I. Background
In April 2018, the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County
declared Petitioner to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to the custody of the
Missouri Department of Mental Health. See In re Larry Windeknecht, No. 16CG-PR00247
(32nd Jud. Cir. 2016). Petitioner now resides at the Fulton State Hospital in Fulton, Missouri.
Petitioner states that he filed the instant Petition to seek coram nobis relief from his 1988
burglary and sexual abuse convictions entered by the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County.
He cites Missouri state criminal case numbers CR586-422FX and CR586-525FX. He avers he
has served his sentence and now seeks to vacate the state court’s judgment “based upon ‘Actual
Innocence.’” Doc. 1 at 2.
Case: 4:25-cv-01183-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. Discussion
A. Proceeding without Prepayment of Fees
This district court previously found that no filing fee applies to a petition for writ of error
coram nobis. See Katz v. United States, 4:11-cv-0513-CDP, 2011 WL 1533071, at *2 (E.D. Mo.
Apr. 21, 2011); Johnson v. United States, 4:12-cv-0091-CAS, 2012 WL 666730, at *3 (E.D. Mo.
Feb. 28, 2012). While coram nobis relief is unavailable in this case, the Court has liberally
construed the Petition and will not require a filing fee. Consequently, the Court will deny
Petitioner’s Application as moot.
B. Coram Nobis
The United States Supreme Court has determined that a writ of error coram nobis can be
used to correct errors that occurred during a criminal proceeding, even when the defendant is no
longer in custody. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 505-11 (1954). See also Kandiel v.
United States, 964 F.2d 794, 796 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that in a federal criminal case, a
defendant who is no longer in custody may be able to challenge his conviction by means of a
petition for writ of coram nobis). However, coram nobis relief is only available in the court of
conviction as part of the original case, not as a separate action before another court. Morgan,
346 U.S. at 505 n.4 (stating that an application for coram nobis relief “is a step in the criminal
case and not, like habeas corpus where relief is sought in a separate case and record, the
beginning of a separate civil [p]roceeding”); Trackwell v. Nebraska, 126 F. App’x 336, 337 (8th
Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal “because a defendant may seek coram nobis relief only from the
court that rendered judgment.”).
As a result, coram nobis relief is not available in federal court for an individual
challenging his state court conviction, as Petitioner attempts to do. See Morgan, 346 U.S. at 505
Case: 4:25-cv-01183-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
n.4; see also Menchaca v. Nebraska, 2018 WL 3009118 (D. Neb. 2018) (finding that the
petitioner could not challenge his state criminal conviction by seeking a writ of coram nobis in
federal court); Finkelstein v. Spitzer, 455 F.3d 131, 134 (2nd Cir. 2006) (agreeing with other
Circuits “that the district courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of coram nobis to set aside
judgments of state courts”); Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3rd Cir. 2003) (finding that
coram nobis relief was not available in federal court as a means of attack on a state criminal
judgment); Lowery v. McCaughtry, 954 F.2d 422, 423 (7th Cir. 1992) (coram nobis relief must be
sought in the court that issued the judgment); Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir.
1982) (stating that “[i]t is well settled that the writ of error coram nobis is not available in federal
court to attack state criminal judgments”); Thomas v. Cunningham, 335 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir.
1964) (explaining that “coram nobis...cannot issue under the instant proceeding...for the
judgments are not in the court which [petitioner] has petitioned”); and Rivenburgh v. Utah, 299
F.2d 842, 843 (10th Cir. 1962) (stating that “use of the writ is limited by tradition and rule...and
cannot be used as a...collateral writ of error between state and federal jurisdictions.”).
III. Conclusion
Petitioner is not challenging a conviction entered by this Court. Instead, he is challenging
his Missouri state court conviction. As such, coram nobis relief is not available to him, and the
Petition must be dismissed without further proceedings. Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
will be denied as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees, doc. 2, is DENIED as moot.
Case: 4:25-cv-01183-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s All Writ of Coram Nobis Seeking Relief
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is DENIED and DISMISSED. A separate order of dismissal
will be entered with this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for the Appointment of Counsel,
doc. 3, is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 11th day of February 2026.
__________________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01183-JAR Doc. #: 4 Filed: 02/11/26 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>