Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00155-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner was convicted of multiple crimes in Kern County Superior Court in 2013. He served 

a seven year sentence and has since been released from custody. He now petitions for a writ of error 

coram nobis. As discussed below, the Court finds the petition should be dismissed because Petitioner 

has failed to satisfy the requirements for the highly unusual remedy of coram nobis. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 6, 2013, Petitioner was convicted in the Kern County Superior Court of one count of 

witness tampering, one count of criminal threats, and one count of participating in a criminal street 

gang. (Doc. No. 1 at p. 2.) Gang enhancements were also found true. (Id.) He was sentenced to an 

indeterminate term of seven-years-to-life. (Id.) Subsequently, he was resentenced to a determinate 

term of seven years and was released from custody on October 5, 2016. (Id.) Petitioner appealed to 

the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (“Fifth DCA”), and judgment was affirmed on 

OSCAR IVAN VELASQUEZ-QUINONEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00155-AWI-JLT (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

Case 1:17-cv-00155-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 4
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

January 8, 2016. (Id. at p. 25.) He filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court, and the 

petition was denied on April 13, 2016. (Id.) He also filed a habeas petition in the Kern County 

Superior Court which was denied on November 5, 2016.

Petitioner filed his petition for writ of error coram nobis in this Court on January 23, 2017. 

(Doc. No. 1). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 

the district court . . . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 

Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 

answer to the petition has been filed. 

B. Standard for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

“Both the Supreme Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have long made clear that the writ of error 

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.” United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 

1005–06 (9th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court characterized the writ as an “extraordinary remedy” that 

should be granted “only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.” United 

States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954); see also Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 

(1996) (“‘[I]t is difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where [a writ of 

coram nobis ] would be necessary or appropriate.’”) (quoting United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469, 

475 n. 4 (1947)) (second alteration in original). The writ has been available to bring before the court 

only those fundamental “factual errors material to the validity and regularity of the legality of the 

proceeding itself, such as the defendants being under age or having died before the verdict.” Carlisle, 

517 U.S. at 429. 

The Ninth Circuit has also described the writ as “extraordinary,” Hirabayashi v. United States, 

Case 1:17-cv-00155-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 4
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

828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir. 1997), “used only to review errors of the most fundamental character,” 

Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2002), and “fill[ing] a very precise gap in 

federal criminal procedure,” Telink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th Cir. 1994). The Ninth 

Circuit adopted the following framework to determine when the writ should issue: 

[A] petitioner must show the following to qualify for coram nobis relief: (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.

Hirabayashi, 828 F.2d at 604. 

C. Analysis

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements for such an extraordinary remedy. The more 

usual remedy in this case would be a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. While § 2254 relief is no longer available insofar as Petitioner is no longer in custody, he was 

in custody after the California Supreme Court denied review on April 13, 2016. He fails to state why 

he did not or could not have filed a § 2254 petition at that point. Petitioner fails to satisfy the second 

requirement since he provides no valid reason for not attacking the conviction earlier. 

Moreover, Petitioner fails to show that the error is of “the most fundamental character.” 

Hirabayashi, 828 F.2d at 604. He presents a litany of claims which he presented to the state courts, 

and he alleges the state court rejection of those claims was unreasonable. He claims the trial court 

erred in admitting certain evidence; he claims the evidence was insufficient to support a gang 

enhancement, the gang crime, and the criminal threat crime; and, he claims defense counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance with certain remarks in closing argument and by failing to present evidence. 

These are typical habeas claims, not “errors of the most fundamental character.” Matus-Leva, 287 

F.3d at 760. Consequently, the Court finds that the extraordinary writ of error coram nobis should not 

be available in this case. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis be 

SUMMARILY DISMISSED. 

///

Case 1:17-cv-00155-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 4
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

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

twenty-one days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. 

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00155-AWI-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 4