Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02566/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02566-1/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 DENYING PETITIONER’S 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM 

NOBIS

On November 8, 2018, Petitioner Cesar Rojo-Moreno, represented by counsel, filed 

his petition for writ of coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. (Doc. 

No. 1.) On May 1, 2019, the Government filed its response to the petition. (Doc. No. 10.) 

Per the Court’s scheduling order, Petitioner’s reply was due on or before June 5, 2019, 

(Doc. No. 6), but Petitioner has not filed any reply. For the following reasons, the Court 

denies Petitioner’s petition for writ of coram nobis.

A writ of error coram nobis permits a criminal defendant to attack a conviction after 

he has served his sentence and is no longer in custody. Telink, Inc. v. United States, 42 

F.3d 42, 45 (9th Cir. 1994). “The writ provides a remedy for those suffering from the 

‘lingering collateral consequences of an unconstitutional or unlawful conviction based on 

Case 3:18-cv-02566-H-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

errors of fact’ and ‘egregious legal errors.’” United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1420 

(9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496, 1499 (9th Cir. 1985)).

“Thus, the coram nobis writ allows a court to vacate its judgments ‘for errors of fact . . . in 

those cases where the errors are of the most fundamental character, that is, such as rendered 

the proceeding itself invalid.’” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir. 

1987) (internal alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 

(1914)). In order to succeed on a writ of error coram nobis, a petitioner must show “(1) a 

more usual remedy is not available; (2) valid reasons exist for not attacking the conviction 

earlier; (3) adverse consequences exist from the conviction sufficient to satisfy the case or 

controversy requirement of Article III; and (4) the error is of the most fundamental 

character.” United States v. McClelland, 941 F.2d 999, 1002 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting 

Hirabayashi, 828 F.2d at 604). “It is presumed the proceedings were correct and the burden 

rests on the accused to show otherwise.” United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 512 

(1954).

On April 15, 1997, Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States with 

27.66 kilgrams of marijuana. (United States v. Rojo Moreno, 3:97-cr-2002-H-1, Doc. No. 

9.) Petitioner was arrested and charged with violating 21 U.S.C. § 952 and § 960. (Id.)

Petitioner states that his lawyer at the time advised him to plead guilty and did not inform 

him of possible immigration consequences of the plea agreement. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.)

Petitioner pled guilty and was sentenced on December 22, 1997 to 12 months in prison and 

2 years on supervised release. (United States v. Rojo Moreno, 3:97-cr-2002-H-1, Doc. No. 

20.) Now, after serving his sentence, Petitioner seeks writ of error coram nobis arguing that 

his underlying conviction is invalid pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010)

because he was not advised of the potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner states that as a result of his conviction, he may be precluded from 

becoming a U.S. citizen and may be deported. (Id. at 1–4.)

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02566-H-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

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

After review of the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not 

entitled to writ of coram nobis relief. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth 

Amendment requires defense counsel to “inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of 

deportation.” 559 U.S. at 356. Subsequently, the Supreme Court has held that Padilla does 

not apply retroactively to defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla. 

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 358 (2013); see United States v. Herzer, 676 F. 

App’x 673 (9th Cir. 2017) (denying coram nobis petition based on Padilla because the 

petitioner pled guilty and was convicted in 1992). Here, Petitioner pled guilty and his 

conviction became final in 1997, well before Padilla was decided in 2010. Because the 

Supreme Court has held that Padilla does not apply retroactively, Petitioner cannot benefit 

from its holding. See Chaidez, 568 U.S. at 358. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show 

that any fundamental error occurred. See Morgan, 346 U.S. at 512. Further, the Court also 

notes that Petitioner has waited over 20 years to attack his conviction and has failed to 

provide valid reasons for not attacking the conviction earlier. See id.

Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to writ of error coram nobis relief. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Petitioner’s petition for writ of 

coram nobis. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-02566-H-NLS Document 13 Filed 07/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3