Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00516-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NICHOLAS LEVI RIANTO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00516-DAD-SKO 

Order Directing U.S. Attorney’s Office to File 

Responsive Pleading and Directing Clerk to 

Serve Order on U.S. Attorney’s Office

 This matter was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on December 4, 2015. (Doc. 

No. 7). This petition for writ of coram nobis was originally filed on April 4, 2012, and alleges 

that petitioner received constitutionally ineffective counsel in an underlying criminal case. (Doc. 

No. 1). Petitioner alleges his trial counsel failed to adequately disclose the immigration 

consequences of his pleading guilty to the underlying criminal charge, and that had trial counsel 

provided sufficient guidance on this topic, petitioner would have either demanded a different plea 

agreement or insisted on going to trial. (Doc. No. 1). 

In an order dated October 12, 2012, the District Judge previously assigned to this action 

found petitioner had set forth sufficient facts supporting the petition for a writ of coram nobis

such that he had stated a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. No. 3, at 10). Therein, the court 

ordered petitioner’s counsel of record at the time of the underlying criminal conviction—attorney 

Jack Revvill—to submit to the court, within twenty-one (21) days, any information he possessed 

Case 1:12-cv-00516-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2

involving what representations the defense attorney had made to petitioner concerning the 

immigration consequences of his plea agreement. (Doc. No. 3, at 10–11). The previously 

assigned District Judge also ordered respondent to file and serve a responsive pleading to the 

petition for a writ of coram nobis within twenty-one (21) days of trial counsel’s submission. 

(Doc. No. 3, at 11). However, petitioner’s trial counsel made no submission, and respondent 

served no responsive pleading, following the issuance of the October 12, 2012 order. 

On February 10, 2014, the previously assigned District again ordered attorney Revvill to 

submit the above information to the court within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. No. 4, at 2). The 

respondent was similarly ordered to file a responsive pleading twenty-one (21) days following 

Mr. Revvill’s submission. (Doc. No. 4, at 2). On March 3, 2014, Mr. Revvill submitted a 

declaration under seal to this court. (Doc. No. 5 at 1). 

On December 4, 2015, this action was reassigned to the undersigned. It has now come to 

the attention of the court that no designated attorney of record for the government has ever 

appeared in this matter, and there is no indication in the court docket that any of the orders or 

other documents filed herein have ever been served on the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern 

District of California. However, given that the court has already found the petition to have stated 

a cognizable claim for relief, required trial counsel for petitioner to file a declaration, and issued 

orders for the respondent to file a responsive pleading, the court now direct the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office to file a responsive pleading within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order. 

For the reasons set forth above: 

1. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California, is directed to file a 

responsive pleading to petitioner’s writ of coram nobis within twenty-one (21) days of service of 

this order; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order, as well as the petition for writ of 

coram nobis (Doc. No. 1), the court’s October 12, 2012 order on petitioner’s writ of coram nobis

(Doc. No. 3), the court’s February 11, 2014 order on petitioner’s writ of coram nobis (Doc. No. 

4), the court’s April 8, 2014 order granting a request to file under seal to trial counsel (Doc. No. 

/////

Case 1:12-cv-00516-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5), and the court’s order transferring the case to the undersigned (Doc. No. 7), on the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office at: 

Benjamin B. Wagner 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California 

Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse 

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 

Fresno, CA 93721 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-00516-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 3