Erick Wanjiku was convicted in Oklahoma state court for domestic assault and battery by strangulation and sentenced to three years in prison. After his state sentence ended in May 2023, he was immediately taken into federal custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was later convicted of assaulting a federal officer and sentenced to another three years in federal prison. On April 7, 2025, while in federal custody, Wanjiku filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his original state conviction. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that § 2254 requires the petitioner to be in state custody at the time of filing. The district court also denied a certificate of appealability, prompting Wanjiku to appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit began by noting that a state prisoner does not have an absolute right to appeal a denial of habeas relief; they must first obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). To grant a COA, the court must find that the petitioner made a substantial showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. The district court had dismissed the petition because Wanjiku was not in state custody when he filed, a requirement that is jurisdictional under § 2254. Wanjiku argued that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, specifically by granting a writ of audita querela. The court rejected this argument, citing its decision in United States v. Torres, which held that the All Writs Act is not an independent basis for jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court noted that a writ of audita querela is used to challenge judgments that were correct when rendered but became infirm due to matters arising afterward. Wanjiku's claims of judicial bias and abuse of discretion occurred before the state judgment became final, meaning the writ was not applicable. Since Wanjiku conceded he did not meet the custody requirement and offered no valid alternative legal theory, the court found no debatable issue for jurists of reason to consider.
The appeal is dismissed, and Wanjiku receives no relief on his constitutional claims. The decision reinforces the strict jurisdictional requirement that a § 2254 petitioner must be in state custody at the time of filing. It clarifies that the All Writs Act cannot be used to bypass this custody requirement for state prisoners who are now in federal custody. Wanjiku may need to explore other avenues, such as a § 2241 petition if he can establish a different basis for relief, though the court's reasoning suggests significant hurdles remain.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download