Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00822/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00822-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald A. Allen,

Petitioner,

v. 

United States of America,

Respondent.

No. CV-24-00822-PHX-SRB (JZB) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Donald A. Allen (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Error 

Coram Nobis. (Doc. 1.)

I. Summary of Conclusion.

Petitioner requests the Court vacate his 2010 conviction for Illegal Reentry allegedly 

based on an improper removal order. In 2014, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion raising 

similar claims. The Court dismissed that motion in 2015 finding Petitioner waived his right 

to bring the motion under the terms of his plea agreement. Petitioner’s collateral attack here 

is similarly waived. What is more, Petitioner could have brought any new claims in his 

prior § 2255 matter. Petitioner also fails to provide valid reasons for the delay in 

challenging the conviction. Petitioner’s § 2255 matter concluded in 2015, but he first 

sought coram nobis relief in 2023. The Court recommends the petition be denied and 

dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 10
- 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

II. Background.

A. Removal Proceedings in 2006.

On March 6, 2006, a deportation officer served a final administrative removal order 

on Petitioner. (Doc. 1 at 66.) Immigration authorities served Petitioner with a Form I-851, 

“Notice of Intent to Issue Final Administrative Removal Order.” (Id.) The Form I-851, an 

immigration charging document, alleged, inter alia, that Petitioner was a native and citizen 

of Jamaica, that he was not a citizen or national of the United States, and he was not 

lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The I-851 also charged Petitioner was 

removable as an aggravated felon, which was based on a New York drug trafficking 

conviction. (Id.)

On June 1, 2006, immigration authorities removed Petitioner from the United States 

to Jamaica. (CR 10-1232-PHX-SRB; Doc. 1 at 3.)

B. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 Prosecution in 2010.

On July 16, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed charging Petitioner with Reentry 

of Removed Alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and enhanced by (b)(1). (CR 10-1232-PHXSRB; Doc. 1.) On August 26, 2010, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the offense pursuant to a 

plea agreement. (Id.; Doc. 14.) On November 17, 2010, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 

six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. (Id.; Doc. 25.)

C. Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion in 2014.

On July 25, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a 

Sentence by a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (CV 14-1687-PHXSRB; Doc. 1.)1 On May 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the Petition “because Allen made a 

valid waiver of his right to bring this motion in his written plea agreement and because the 

statute of limitations has run.” (Id.; Doc. 28 at 4.)

On June 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a pro se motion for rehearing en banc and a notice 

1 On October 5, 2012, Petitioner filed a previous Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct a Sentence by a person in federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (CV 12-

2113-PHX-SRB; Doc. 1.) On December 20, 2012, the Court dismissed the matter without 

prejudice because Petitioner did not use the court-approved form. (Id.; Doc. 3.)

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 10
- 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

of appeal. (Id.; Docs. 30-31.) On December 7, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

denied Petitioner’s request to file a brief and terminated the case. (Id.; Doc 35.)

Petitioner agrees that he was subsequently again removed “to Jamaica pursuant to 

the reinstated order of removal from 2006.” (Doc. 1 at 42.) No other information about this 

removal appears in the record here.

D. Petitioner’s § 1983 Civil Matter.

On December 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 while he was in custody in New Jersey. (CV 14-8235-PHX-SRB; Doc. 1.) 

Petitioner personally litigated the matter from New Jersey through 2018. On June 9, 2017, 

Petitioner filed an objection to a motion to dismiss the matter. (Id.; Doc. 73.) On November 

13, 2017, Petitioner mailed a request for production of documents in the matter. (Id.; Doc. 

83.) On March 12, 2018, Petitioner mailed a motion for an order compelling discovery. 

(Id.; Doc. 103.) On April 4, 2018, counsel filed a notice of appearance on behalf of 

Petitioner. On July 2, 2018, the Court dismissed the matter after counsel for both parties 

filed a notice of settlement. (Id.; Doc. 113.) 

E. 21 U.S.C. § 841 Prosecution in the Central District of California.

On December 4, 2020, in the Central District of California, the United States filed 

a Complaint against Petitioner alleging a violation of “Title 21 United States Code, 

Sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(ii) (possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of 

a mixture or substance containing cocaine) on or about July 29, 2020.” (EDCR 21-0013-

JGB-1; Doc. 1.) Defendant was detained during his proceedings. (Id.; Doc. 19.) On June 

12, 2023, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. (Id.; Doc. 115.) 

During the change of plea proceeding, Petitioner admitted he participated in a drug 

trafficking conspiracy between November 23, 2020, and December 2, 2020. (Id.; Doc. 151 

at 18-19.) On September 11, 2023, the court sentenced Petitioner to 100 months of 

imprisonment for “Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute 

Controlled Substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), as charged in Count 

One of the Indictment.” (Id.; Doc. 131.)

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 10
- 4 -

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

On September 23, 2023, Petitioner entered a notice of appeal that was filed on 

October 2, 2023. (Id.; Doc. 134.) On October 23, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion and 

Affidavit for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. (Id.; Doc. 141.) On June 26, 2024, 

Petitioner’s “unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal” of the appeal was granted. (Id.; 

Doc. 161.)

F. Writ of Coram Nobis.

On April 10, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Error Coram 

Nobis.2 Petitioner requests the Court vacate his § 1326 conviction because 1) “the 

immigration agent/judge erroneously concluded that his state conviction[] supporting 

removal was an aggravated felony, thus precluding Allen from seeking, or being 

considered for, any form of relief from removal” and “rendering his removal order invalid”; 

2) he did not waive “his rights to challenge the removal order”; 3) his criminal attorney 

“was ineffective because he failed” to investigate or attack his prior removal order, and 4) 

“his due process rights w[ere] violated because the underlying guilty plea should be vacated 

on constitutional grounds.” (Doc. 1 at 2-3.)

On August 23, 2024, Respondent filed a Response. (Doc. 11.) On October 28, 2024, 

Petitioner filed a Reply. (Doc. 22.)

III. Discussion.

A. Petitioner Waived His Right to File the Petition.

In Petitioner’s § 2255 proceeding (CV 14-1687-PHX-SRB), Petitioner argued, inter 

alia, that “his New York conviction wasn’t an aggravated felony” and his criminal counsel 

provided ineffective assistance by failing to attack his underlying removal order. (Id., Doc. 

1 at 7, 10.) Petitioner argued that his “underlying removal order was defective and 

prejudicial” and counsel should have “noticed the defects” in his case. (Id. at 10.)

During Petitioner’s change of plea hearing, Petitioner agreed he was waiving his 

2 On October 26, 2023, Petitioner filed the same Petition, but he did not explain why 

he waited until 2023 to bring his claim. (CV 23-2234-SRB; Doc. 1 at 1-40.) The Court 

dismissed the Petition with prejudice. (Id.; Doc. 11.) Subsequently, Petitioner filed the 

exact same Petition here and included eight additional pages explaining the delay. (Doc. 1 

at 41-49.) The Court ordered an answer, and a report and recommendation. (Doc. 7 at 5.)

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 10
- 5 -

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

right to challenge the judgment and sentence in a collateral proceeding:

THE COURT: And if the judge who sentences you 

sentences you consistent with all the terms of your Plea 

Agreement, there is a paragraph in your Plea Agreement 

entitled Waiver of Appeal Rights. And what that advises you 

of is that you have given up your right in that circumstance to 

challenge your judgment and sentence to a higher court on 

appeal and to come back before this court in a collateral 

proceeding to challenge your judgment and sentence. Do you 

understand this?

DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

(CR 10-1232-PHX-SRB; Doc. 32 at 13-14.)

Petitioner also agreed that he could be waiving any right to challenge his prior 

removal:

THE COURT: By pleading guilty to the crime of 

Reentry of Removed Alien, do you understand that you may 

be waiving any right that you might otherwise have had to 

challenge the legality of that particular prior removal?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

(Id. at 15.)

Petitioner’s plea agreement expressly waived “any right to file an appeal, any 

collateral attack, and any other writ or motion that challenges the conviction . . . including, 

but not limited to any appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2241 and 2255.” (Id., Doc. 24 at 4; Attachment A at 4.)

In 2015, the Court denied Petitioner relief finding, in part, that “Allen made a valid 

waiver of his right to bring this motion in his written plea agreement” and that he did not 

challenge his “knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to collateral review.” (Id., Doc. 

28 at 4.) Petitioner’s request here is also a collateral attack on his conviction. See Telink, 

Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th Cir. 1994) (“a petition for writ of error coram 

nobis is a collateral attack on a criminal conviction”). The law of the case doctrine generally 

prohibits a court from considering an issue that has already been decided by that same court 

or a higher court in the same case unless: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) 

an intervening change in the law has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially 

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 10
- 6 -

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

different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would 

otherwise result. United States v. Jingles, 702 F.3d 494, 499–500, 503 (9th Cir. 2012); 

United States v. Scrivner, 189 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. 

Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997)). “A collateral attack is the ‘same case’ as 

the direct appeal proceedings for purposes of the law of the case doctrine.” Jingles, 702 

F.3d at 500. Petitioner has failed to establish that this Court’s prior ruling was clearly 

erroneous considering his appeal waiver. He fails to argue that any other factor for 

reconsideration is appropriate here. 

B. Petitioner Is Not Entitled to Relief.

Notwithstanding Petitioner’s waiver, Petitioner is also not entitled to relief because 

he could have brought any new claim in his prior § 2255 petition, and he fails to justify the 

delay in filing this petition. “Both the Supreme Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have long 

made clear that the writ of error coram nobis is a highly unusual remedy . . . .” Riedl, 496 

F.3d at 1005. To warrant this extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must show: “(1) the 

unavailability of a more usual remedy; (2) valid reasons for the delay in challenging the 

conviction; (3) adverse consequences from the conviction sufficient to satisfy Article III’s

case-and-controversy requirement; and (4) an error of the most fundamental character.”

United States v. Kroytor, 977 F.3d 957, 958 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). “Because these 

requirements are conjunctive, failure to meet any one of them is fatal.” Matus-Leva v. 

United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). “A writ of error coram nobis attacking 

[a] conviction may only be brought in the sentencing court.” United States v. Monreal, 301 

F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002).

1. A More Usual Remedy Was Available.

Petitioner could have presented any new claims in his § 2255 proceeding. Petitioner 

now argues that the New York conviction supporting his removal was not an aggravated 

felony because it did not involve drug trafficking. (Doc. 1 at 11-13.) He argues the 

conviction did not support removal because “the New York statute criminalizes certain 

‘isomers’ of cocaine that the CSA does not.” (Id. at 15.) He argues he did not waive his 

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 10
- 7 -

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

right to appeal the order of removal. (Id. at 28-35.) He alleges he was denied due process 

during removal proceedings. (Id. at 35.) He argues counsel provided ineffective assistance 

of counsel by failing to seek “dismissal based on a collateral attack on” Petitioner’s 

removal proceedings. (Id. at 37-40.)

In his § 2255 motion, in Ground Three, Petitioner argued that his New York 

conviction “did not constitute an aggravated felony” because it had “NO trafficking 

element or constituted a felony under the Federal Controlled Substance Act.” (CV 14-1687, 

Doc. 1 at 24.) But Petitioner could have included his “isomers” claim in his 2015 motion. 

He also argued, as he does now, that he did not waive his rights during removal proceedings 

(Ground Four), his criminal trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to attack 

his underlying removal order (Ground Six), and he was denied his rights during removal 

proceedings (Grounds Seven and Eight). (Id.; Doc. 1 at 5-12.) The Court already dismissed 

these claims with prejudice in 2015. To the extent any of his claims are new, Petitioner 

fails to demonstrate why he could not have brought these legal challenges in his prior § 

2255 motion. Petitioner must show “the unavailability of a more usual remedy,” and he 

cannot meet this burden.

In his Reply, Petitioner again challenges his 2006 removal order and removal 

proceedings. (Doc. 22 at 1-16.) He also challenges the scope of his appeal waiver in his 

2010 conviction. (Id. at 17-26.) Petitioner also argues that “constitutionally deficient 

lawyering prevented [him] from understanding his plea or from filing any post-conviction 

relief . . . .” (Id. at 26-33.) But, as noted above, Petitioner had the ability to file a collateral 

attack in his matter, which he did. Petitioner’s § 2255 petition included claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner had a remedy of a conventional collateral 

attack, which was unsuccessful. Thus, the writ of error of coram nobis cannot issue here. 

See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (coram nobis relief only 

appropriate “in a narrow range of cases where no more conventional remedy is 

applicable”).

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 7 of 10
- 8 -

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. Petitioner’s Failed Diligence.

Petitioner also fails to provide valid reasons for filing this petition eight years after 

his § 2255 proceedings concluded. Petitioner asserts that he was removed to Jamaica and 

was previously unable to file the coram nobis petition. Petitioner states that he “was 

removed/deported to Jamaica pursuant to the reinstated order of removal from 2006” and 

this removal “significantly interrupted his ability to continue the process of attacking his 

conviction while in Jamaica.” (Doc. 1 at 42.) Petitioner asserts that “while in Jamaica” he 

had “[n]o access to a functioning court to continue his challenge/attacking his conviction.”

(Id.) He asserts he could not “reenter the United States to bring forth this Writ of Error 

Coram Nobis without suffering extreme hardship.” (Id.)

But Petitioner was in the United States for two years after his § 2255 proceedings 

ended on December 7, 2015. (CV 14-1687-PHX-SRB; Doc. 35.) On December 8, 2014, 

Petitioner filed a § 1983 complaint while he was in custody in New Jersey. (CV 14-8235-

PHX-SRB; Doc. 1.) Petitioner personally litigated the matter from New Jersey through at 

least March 12, 2018, the date he signed and mailed a motion for an order compelling 

discovery. (Id.; Doc. 103.) Petitioner had at least 26 months to file a coram nobis petition

while he was in custody in New Jersey, so he fails to present a valid reason for delaying 

the filing of the petition. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1007 (finding petitioner ineligible for coram 

nobis relief because she did “not explain why she did not challenge her conviction prior to 

her deportation, either during the nine months between her release from prison and her 

deportation, or while she was still imprisoned.”) (cleaned up).

Petitioner also returned to the United States no later than November of 2020. 

Petitioner is currently in custody based on a conviction in the Central District of California 

for Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine. (EDCR 21-0013-JGB-1; Doc. 1.) During 

the change of plea proceedings in his drug trafficking case, Petitioner admitted he 

participated in a drug trafficking conspiracy in California between November 23, 2020,

and December 2, 2020. (Id.; Doc. 151 at 18-19.) The Complaint charged Petitioner with 

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 8 of 10
- 9 -

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

committing an offense on July 29, 2020.3 Petitioner had the ability to pursue this Petition 

as early as 2020, but he did not file his first coram nobis petition until October 26, 2023.

(CV 23-2234-PHX-SRB; Doc. 1 at 1-40.)4 Petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Riedl, 496 

F.3d at 1006-07 (affirming denial of coram nobis petition as untimely where petitioner filed 

petition six years after conviction).

C. Conclusion.

Petitioner waived his right to bring this Petition. Petitioner could have brought these 

claims in his prior § 2255 proceedings, but he did not do so. Petitioner also fails to justify 

the delay in filing the Petition. The record is sufficiently developed, and the Court finds 

the Petition and record conclusively show Petitioner is entitled to no relief. Additionally, 

an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary for resolving this matter because the court record 

provides conclusory evidence Petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Baumann v. United 

States, 692 F.2d 565, 570–71 (9th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).5

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Error Coram 

Nobis to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (doc. 1) be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.

3 The probable cause statement for the Complaint states that law enforcement seized 

a parcel containing cocaine on July 30, 2020 (id.; Doc. 1 at 6), and fingerprints from the 

parcel were later identified as Petitioner’s (id.; Doc. 1 at 10). The probable cause statement 

asserts that Riverside Police Department Detective Scott Levesque observed Petitioner in 

California on September 10, 2020. (Id.; Doc. 1 at 8.) As such, there is sworn evidence that 

Petitioner was in the United States as early as July 29, 2020.

4 Petitioner asserts that “under Rule 15(c)(1)(b) of the Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure, ‘so long as the original and amended petition state claim[s] that are tied to a 

common core of operative facts, relation back will be in order.’” (Doc. 1 at 45.) Petitioner’s 

argument regarding relation back is groundless. Petitioner is not filing an amended petition,

and his previous petition was dismissed. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (“[W]e hold that a habeas petition filed after the district court dismisses a 

previous petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies cannot relate back 

to the original habeas petition.”); Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640, 645 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(“Because [Luna’s counsel] had voluntarily dismissed Luna’s pro se petition, however, that 

case had long since been closed. As a result, there was no pending petition to which the 

‘amended’ petition could relate back.”).

5

“[P]etitions for a writ of coram nobis [are otherwise to] be treated in a manner 

similar to [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 habeas corpus petitions.” Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.

Supp. 1406, 1413 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (citing United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 573 n.25

(9th Cir. 1981) (“Whether a hearing is required on a coram nobis motion should be resolved 

in the same manner as habeas corpus petitions.”).

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 9 of 10
- 10 -

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

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED. Petitioner has not demonstrated 

reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or jurists could conclude the issues

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The 

parties have 14 days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation’s copy 

to file specific, written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days to respond to the objections. 

Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024.

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:24-cv-00822-SRB Document 23 Filed 12/04/24 Page 10 of 10