Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02566/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1651cn Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

---

1

3:18-cv-02566-H-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

CESAR ROJO-MORENO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02566-H-NLS

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[Doc. No. 3]; and

(2) SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

On November 8, 2018, Petitioner Cesar Rojo-Moreno filed his petition for writ of 

coram nobis. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 7, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for entry of 

default. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court denies Petitioner’s motion for entry of default on 

numerous procedural grounds. First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1) provides that 

to serve the United States, a party must “deliver a copy of the summons and of the 

complaint to the United States attorney for the district where the action is brought” and 

“send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United 

Case 3:18-cv-02566-H-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-02566-H-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

States at Washington, D.C.” Petitioner’s proof of service filed along with his motion for 

entry of default only shows that Petitioner served the U.S. Attorney for the Southern 

District of California, and does not show that Petitioner served the U.S. Attorney General. 

(See Doc. No. 3 at 3–4.) Thus, Petitioner’s service of process is deficient. Second, 

Petitioner has failed to obtain a Clerk’s entry of default prior to moving for default, as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Third, this case was stayed during the 

federal lapse in appropriations, pursuant to General Order 688. Accordingly, the Court 

denies without prejudice Petitioner’s motion for default judgment. 

The Court therefore issues the following scheduling order on the coram nobis 

petition:

1. Petitioner must serve the Government in compliance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4 and file his proof of service on or before March 6, 2019.

2. Because this petition relates to a criminal matter dating back to 1997, the 

Court grants the Government additional time in preparing its response. Accordingly, the 

Government must file its response to the petition on or before May 1, 2019. Along with its 

response, the Government must file a copy of transcripts from plea hearings in Petitioner’s

criminal case and any other documents relevant to the determination of issues in this 

petition.

3. Petitioner must file his reply on or before June 5, 2019.

4. Pursuant to the Court’s discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court

determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and submits

the petition on the parties’ papers. The Court reserves the right to schedule a hearing at a 

later time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-02566-H-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2