Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01000/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

GABRIEL URBINA-GUTIERREZ,

Petitioner,

Case No. 12cv01000 BTM

(98cr01700 BTM)

v. ORDER DENYING PETITION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

On June 15, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause why Petitioner Gabriel

Urbina-Gutierrez’s petition should not be denied for failure to show valid reasons for not

attacking the conviction earlier (ECF No. 2). In response to the order to show cause,

Petitioner, through his wife Marcela Torres de Urbina, filed a letter with the Court nunc pro

tunc to August 1, 2012 (ECF No. 4).

While the Court sympathizes with the difficult life circumstances of Petitioner and his

family described in the letter, such general hardship is insufficient to show cause as to the

specific issue of why Petitioner did not attack the conviction earlier, all the more so because

Ms. Urbina’s letter did not adequately address Petitioner’s reasons for not attacking the

conviction earlier. While Ms. Urbina did mention a house fire that destroyed papers related

to Petitioner’s case (id. at 2 & 3), she offered no explanation as to why Petitioner did not seek

additional copies, since the papers are in the public record for the case.

1 12cv01000 BTM (98cr01700 BTM)

Case 3:12-cv-01000-BTM Document 6 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 2
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

 “A writ of coram nobis is a highly unusual remedy, available only to correct grave

injustices in a narrow range of cases where no more conventional remedy is applicable, and

only where the petitioner has exercised due diligence in bringing her concern promptly to the

attention of the courts.” Ikbal v. United States, 304 F. App’x 604, 606 (9th Cir. 2008)

(quotations, alterations, and citations omitted). In general, circumstances justifying delay

include: when the applicable law was recently changed and made retroactive; when new

evidence was discovered that the petitioner could not reasonably have located earlier; and

when the petitioner was improperly advised by counsel not to pursue habeas relief. See

United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2007). In contrast, the Ninth Circuit in

Riedl found that Riedl’s deportation, incarceration, diminished capacity, and the forfeiture of

some of her properties were inadequate reasons, either individually or in combination, to

justify her delay. Id. at 1006. See also Maghe v. United States, 710 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1983)

(denying writ of coram nobis where petitioner failed to allege sound reasons for not

challenging conviction earlier). Because the Court finds that Petitioner’s situation more

closely resembles Riedl, the Court hereby DENIES the petition as untimely.

In addition, under General Order No. 514, the following personal data identifiers

should not appear on pleadings filed with the Court: 1) Social Security numbers; 2) names

of minor children; 3) dates of birth; 4) financial account numbers; and 5) in criminal cases,

the home address of any individual. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the following pages

of Ms. Urbina’s letter (ECF No. 4) be sealed: 2, 8, 11-21, 23, 25, 27, 30-31, 33-47.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 26, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 12cv01000 BTM (98cr01700 BTM)

Case 3:12-cv-01000-BTM Document 6 Filed 12/26/12 Page 2 of 2