Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02397/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02397-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651cn Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

---

1

11cr5171-LAB-1 and 17cv2397-LAB (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUAN TORRES-VALENCIA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 11cr5171-LAB-1 and 

17cv2397-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS

After pleading guilty to one count of importation of marijuana, Juan TorresValencia, a Mexican national, was sentenced to five years’ probation. Over seven 

and a half years later, through counsel, he filed a petition for writ of coram nobis, 

claiming his trial counsel failed to warn him that as a result of his guilty plea he 

might be deported. 

The record shows that Torres-Valencia was aware of the possibility of 

deportation, and in fact stipulated to removal. The Court ordered him to show 

cause why his petition should not be summarily denied, both as meritless and as 

untimely. He filed a response, which the Court determined did not adequately 

explain his lengthy delay. The Court on September 21, 2018 ordered him to file a 

response within 21 days, addressing specific problems in his explanation. (Docket 

no. 9 in case 17cv2397 and 32 in case 11cr5171.) That order reminded him that, 

Case 3:17-cv-02397-LAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

11cr5171-LAB-1 and 17cv2397-LAB (JLB)

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

as the party seeking to set aside his conviction, he bears the burden of showing 

he is entitled to relief. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

After Torres-Valencia filed no response, the Court on January 16, 2019 

ordered him to show cause forthwith why his petition should not be summarily 

denied. (See Docket no. 10 in case 17cv2397 and 32 in case 11cr5171.) He was 

to have filed his response by January 30, 2019. If he did not, the Court cautioned 

him, his failure to respond would be construed as both an admission that he has 

no good explanation for his delay in seeking relief, and as an abandonment of his 

claim. 

Torres-Valencia did not file the response as ordered, nor has he filed 

anything else, nor sought additional time in which to do so. The Court construes 

this as an admission that he has no good explanation for his long delay in seeking 

relief, and also as an abandonment of his claim. For these reasons, and for the 

reasons set forth in the Court’s earlier orders (Docket nos. 9 and 10 in case 

17cv2397; and 32 and 33 in case 11cr5171) the petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02397-LAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2