Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01811/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01811-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAN VIZCARRA-FLORES; 

GABRIEL BOLANOS-SANCHEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

JUDGE JILL L. BURKHARDT, United 

States Magistrate Judge for the Southern 

District of California; UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA, Real Party in Interest,

Respondents.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

(28 U.S.C. § 1651)

On August 3, 2018, Petitioners Adan Vizcarra-Flores and Gabriel BolanosSanchez filed a petition for a writ of mandamus (“Petition”) against Magistrate Judge Jill 

L. Burkhardt with regard to the process for taking their pleas. Each Petitioner was 

charged with violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), Improper Entry by an Alien, and appeared 

before Judge Burkhardt on August 2, 2018.1 (Docket No. 1, “Pet.”)

///

 

1 United States v. Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 3; 

United States v. Bolanos-Sanchez, Case No. 3:18-mj-20597-JLB-1, Docket No. 3.

Case 3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS Document 8 Filed 08/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Briefly, Petitioners allege Judge Burkhardt wrongfully preconditioned acceptance 

of their pleas on the assurances of their counsel that their respective pleas were freely 

given, knowing, and voluntary. They argue that this amounts to an additional 

requirement not mandated or authorized under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure.

2

 In short, Petitioners assert that because their counsel declined to 

provide the assurances to Judge Burkhardt, their plea hearings did not move forward. 

On August 6, 2018, this Court held an emergency hearing. Robert H. Rexrode 

appeared for Petitioners, and Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin Holly appeared 

for Respondents. The hearing was held on short notice due to Petitioners’ interest in 

accepting plea offers for time-served sentences. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the 

Court took the matter under submission. (Docket No. 7.)

On August 8, 2018, Petitioners pleaded guilty to their respective charges, which 

rendered their Petition moot.3 See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“The Court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record.”) (quoting 

Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)). For this reason, 

the Petition is DENIED as moot.

Generally, “a federal court loses its jurisdiction to reach the merits of a claim when 

the court can no longer effectively remedy a present controversy between the parties.” 

Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 836 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted). However, under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception, a 

federal court may decline to dismiss an otherwise moot action if: “(1) the challenged 

action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and 

(2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to 

 

2 Unless otherwise indicated, the Court’s reference to Rules in this Order are to the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

3 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 6; BolanosSanchez, Case No. 3:18-mj-20597-JLB-1, Docket No. 6. 

Case 3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS Document 8 Filed 08/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the same action again.” Id. (quoting FEC v. Wisc. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 462 

(2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court finds this exception applicable to 

Petitioners’ action, and proceeds to analyze the merits of the issues raised in the Petition.

The Court has considered the Petition, the transcript of the August 2, 2018 hearing 

before Judge Burkhardt,

4

and the oral arguments raised by the parties at its August 6, 

2018 emergency hearing. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the Honorable Anthony 

J. Battaglia’s recent order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus in a similar matter. 

See Ramirez-Castillo, et al. v. U.S. Magistrate Judge for the So. Dist. of Cal., Case No. 

3:18-cv-01712-AJB-MDD, Docket No. 6, Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

(July 30, 2018). 

Although the Court agrees with the reasoning in Judge Battaglia’s July 30, 2018 

Order, the Court finds it is not applicable to the facts of this Petition. Petitioners assert 

Judge Burkhardt improperly “refused” to take their pleas by creating “an extra-legal 

requirement” to Rule 11(b) that their counsel “provide his or her own personal opinion 

as to the voluntariness” of their pleas. (Pet. at 2.) However, this assertion is not 

supported by the record. On the contrary, the record supports the Court’s conclusion that

Judge Burkhardt properly declined to accept Petitioners’ guilty pleas because she had 

concerns about the voluntariness of the pleas. 

During the hearing, Judge Burkhardt learned Mr. Vizcarra-Flores was forty-four 

year old and had stopped attending school after the third-grade, and Mr. Bolanos-Sanchez 

was nineteen years old and had completed the twelfth-grade.5 After Judge Burkhardt 

advised Petitioners about the charges against them, the Government’s burden of proof, 

their rights, and the consequences of their guilty pleas, she questioned Petitioners to 

ascertain whether their pleas were voluntary. 

 

4 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 7; BolanosSanchez, Case No. 3:18-mj-20597-JLB-1, Docket Nos. 7-8. 

5 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 7 at p. 16.

Case 3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS Document 8 Filed 08/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Following Petitioners’ Rule 11(b) colloquies, Judge Burkhardt asked Mr. Rexrode, 

their counsel, whether there was “any legal or factual basis why [she] should not accept” 

their pleas.6 Mr. Rexrode responded that Petitioners did not have any “legal factual 

defenses” to their charges, but expressed concerns about the voluntariness of their pleas

“because of the amount of time [he had] spent with [Petitioners] and [his] understanding 

of what [Petitioners] may think is going on.”7 More specifically, Mr. Rexrode indicated

his concern that, other than a high probability of receiving a “time-served” sentence,

Petitioners may not have had sufficient time to consider all of the consequences of a 

guilty plea.8 In contrast, Mr. Rexrode indicated that in a prior hearing for a different

client with similar charges, he could state without reservations that his client was 

pleading guilty voluntarily because he had sufficient time with that client.9 

Subsequently, the record shows Judge Burkhardt became duly concerned with the 

voluntariness of Petitioners’ pleas, and ultimately declined to accept them at the August 

2, 2018 hearing, explaining:

Although [Petitioners] indicated that there was no coercion 

applied, counsel has expressed concerns about the voluntariness 

and about the inherent coerciveness of these proceedings. I find 

that – that raises a concern for the Court about the voluntariness 

of these two pleas, and I find that it’s a matter that can be 

addressed relatively easily though additional time with counsel, 

and so I’m going to grant the additional time. Even though I 

understand the [Petitioners] would prefer to plead today rather 

than spend more time with counsel, I have an independent 

obligation to make sure that these please are knowingly and 

voluntarily made, and I have sufficient concerns about the 

 

6 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 7 at p. 28; 

Bolanos-Sanchez, Case No. 3:18-mj-20597-JLB-1, Docket No. 7 at pp. 35-36 

(Petitioners’ counsel incorporating by reference the same voluntariness discussion 

regarding Petitioner Vizcarra-Flores to Petitioner Bolanoas-Sanchez). 

7 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 7 at p. 29.

8 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 7 at pp. 28-32.

9 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20598-JLB-1, Docket No. 7 at pp. 30-31.

Case 3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS Document 8 Filed 08/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

voluntariness in light of the concerns expressed by counsel to 

not accept the pleas today, and that is true for Mr. Vizcarra and 

Mr. Bolanos.10

In sum, the Court concludes Judge Burkhardt conducted an appropriate inquiry into the 

voluntariness of Petitioners’ pleas. Indeed, the Court commends Judge Burkhardt for 

seeking to protect Petitioners’ rights through her inquiry. Based on the record, the Court 

finds Judge Burkhardt had good cause to decline acceptance of Petitioners’ guilty pleas. 

Therefore, the Petition is also DENIED on this ground.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2018

 

10 Vizcarra-Flores, Case No. 3:18-mj-20597-JLB-1, Docket No. 8 at p. 22.

Case 3:18-cv-01811-BEN-NLS Document 8 Filed 08/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5