Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01304/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01304-1/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 - 06cv1304

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1304 DMS (LSP)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM

NOBIS

vs.

CESAR HUMBERTO DELGADOTORRES,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis filed by

Petitioner Cesar Humberto Delgado-Torres on June 19, 2006. After receiving an extension of time

from the Court, the United States filed a Response to the Petition on September 1, 2006. Petitioner

filed a Reply on September 27, 2006. After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record before the

Court, the Court requested that the United States submit a copy of Petitioner’s A-File. The United

States submitted the A-File for in camera review on November 13, 2006. For the reasons set out

below, the Court denies the Petition. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a fifty-seven year old male who is currently living and working in the State of

California. He is married to a United States citizen and they have one child who is also a United

States citizen. On June 26, 2001, Petitioner submitted an Application to Register Permanent Resident

or Adjust Status with the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Case 3:06-cv-01304-DMS-LSP Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06cv1304

(“I.N.S.”). On February 11, 2005, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship

and Immigration Services, sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny his application. The Department

of Homeland Security (“D.H.S.”) thereafter denied Petitioner’s application on June 27, 2005.

Petitioner’s application was denied because of a 1972 conviction for possession of a controlled

substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

Petitioner’s conviction was entered in this Court on December 13, 1972. Due to the age of the

conviction, the only record of Petitioner’s case is a two-page docketing sheet. (See Govt’s Response,

Ex. 3.) The docketing sheet reflects Petitioner was charged with the possession count identified

above, as well as conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. (Id.)

Petitioner pled guilty to the possession count and the conspiracy count was dismissed. (Id.) The

Court thereafter sentenced Petitioner to a prison term of one year and one day. (Id.) Petitioner served

approximately nine months at the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California. 

Petitioner claims he pled guilty to the possession count based on the advice of his courtappointed counsel, James McCabe. Petitioner asserts he asked McCabe if there would be any

immigration consequences from a guilty plea, to which McCabe responded that Petitioner would be

denied entry into the United States for five years. 

Petitioner returned to the United States in the late 1970s. In 1987, after Congress passed the

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Petitioner applied for an adjustment of his immigrant

status to that of a temporary resident. The I.N.S. denied Petitioner’s application due to his 1972

conviction. Petitioner appealed that decision, but his appeal was denied in 1989. It is unclear whether

Petitioner ever received notice that his appeal was denied. 

II.

DISCUSSION

“The writ of error coram nobis affords a remedy to attack a conviction when the petitioner has

served his sentence and is no longer in custody.” Estate of McKinney By and Through McKinney v.

United States, 71 F.3d 779, 781 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Telink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th

Cir. 1994)). To qualify for coram nobis relief, 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

Case 3:06-cv-01304-DMS-LSP Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 06cv1304

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.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604

(9th Cir. 1987). Petitioner asserts he has met these requirements in this case. Respondent does not

dispute Petitioner has met the first and third requirements, but does dispute Petitioner has met the

second and fourth requirements.

The second requirement for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis is that the petitioner

demonstrate sound or valid reasons for failing to seek relief earlier. United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d

1005, 1012 (9th Cir. 2005). In Kwan, the Ninth Circuit explained, “[w]hile courts have not elaborated

on what constitutes a ‘sound’ reason, our review of coram nobis cases reveals that courts have denied

relief on this ground where the petitioner has delayed for no reason whatsoever, where the respondent

demonstrates prejudice, or where the petitioner appears to be abusing the writ.” Id. at 1013.

Here, Petitioner presents two reasons for his delay in seeking relief. First, he asserts he was

relying on McCabe’s advice that the only immigration consequence of his guilty plea would be his

inadmissibility from the United States for five years following his conviction. Second, Petitioner

states he was unaware of the actual consequences of his conviction until he received notice from the

D.H.S. that his most recent application for adjustment of status was denied. 

Although these reasons appear sound and valid on their face, the evidence before the Court

demonstrates otherwise. As set out above, Petitioner first applied for an adjustment of status in 1987.

That application was denied in 1988 because of Petitioner’s 1972 conviction. Petitioner received

notice of that denial and the reason therefor, as evidenced by his appeal of that decision in 1988. It

is unclear from the evidence whether Petitioner ever received notice of the denial of his appeal, but

even assuming he did not receive notice, once he received the denial of his initial application, it was

no longer reasonable for Petitioner to rely upon McCabe’s advice concerning the immigration

consequences of his guilty plea. 

Furthermore, the government has shown prejudice as a result of Petitioner’s delay in seeking

relief. Although prejudice does not bear upon the validity of a petitioner’s reason for delay, it is an

element of the defense of laches, which applies to petitions for writ of error coram nobis, see Telink,

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01304-DMS-LSP Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 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 1

 Because Petitioner has not met the second requirement, the Court declines to address

whether Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel.

- 4 - 06cv1304

Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th Cir. 1994), and is asserted by the government in this case.

To prevail on a laches defense, 

the government must make a prima facie showing of prejudice as a result of [the

petitioner’s] delay. If the government meets that burden, the burden of production of

evidence then shifts to the petitioners to show either that the government actually was

not prejudiced or that the petitioner exercised reasonable diligence in filing the claim.

Id. at 47.

In this case, the government has satisfied its burden of showing prejudice. In the nearly thirtyfour years since Petitioner’s conviction, the records of the court and the United States attorney have

been destroyed. The identity of the prosecutor that handled Petitioner’s case is unknown, and, not

surprisingly, McCabe’s memory of Petitioner’s case has faded. All of these facts have affected the

government’s ability to respond to the merits of the present Petition, and there is no dispute that a new

trial would be “impossible.” (Pet. at 12.) Petitioner attempts to avoid the laches defense by asserting

he exercised reasonable diligence in filing the present case, but the facts set out above belie that

assertion. 

In sum, Petitioner has not shown either sound or valid reasons for the delay in seeking the

relief requested in the present Petition. When combined with the prejudice demonstrated by the

government, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks.1

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For these reasons, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The Clerk of

Court shall terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2006

DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01304-DMS-LSP Document 13 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 4