-17-
valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated
between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Ashe v.
Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970); accord Hammer v. INS, 195 F.3d
836, 840 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Jones v. Squier, 195 F.2d 179,
180 (9th Cir. 1952) (“The nature of the writ of error coram nobis
is that it is a civil proceeding in which the judgment of the
court is res judicata at least of the issues tendered and
joined.”); cf. United States v. Balistrieri, 606 F.2d 216, 221
(7th Cir. 1979) (“a coram nobis motion is a step in a criminal
proceeding yet is, at the same time, civil in nature and subject
to the civil rules of procedure”).6
Even if petitioners were entitled in this case to repeat
petitioner’s previous assertions, they would still not prevail in
that we disagree with each of their three assertions. Our
decision as to whether Cox had a firm indication of fraud within
the meaning of IRM section 4565.21(1) and failed to suspend his
examination of petitioner turns on the facts in the record at
hand. See United States v. McKee, 192 F.3d 535, 543 (6th Cir.
1999). Petitioners bear the burden of proof. Id. at 542; cf.
United States v. Peters, 153 F.3d 445, 451 (7th Cir. 1998);
6 Although the decisions relating to petitioner’s petition
for writ of error coram nobis were not raised by respondent as an
affirmative defense, a Federal court may raise the issue of res
judicata sua sponte. See Holloway Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dept. of
Labor, 891 F.2d 1211, 1212 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Monahan v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 235, 250 (1997) (“This Court may raise the
doctrine of issue preclusion sua sponte.”).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011