Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00516-4/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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

HENRY Z. CARBAJAL III

Assistant United States Attorney

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4000

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for the 

United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICHOLAS RIANTO,

Defendant.

CASE NOS. 1:12-CV-00516-DAD-SKO

 [1:01-CR-05063-AWI]

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

ERROR CORAM NOBIS; 

ORDER

Hon. Dale A. Drozd

The United States, by and through its attorney, Assistant United States Attorney Henry Z. 

Carbajal III, hereby requests an extension of time to April 18, 2016 to file its response to 

defendant’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Dkt. No. 1.

On January 25, 2016, the Court ordered the United States Attorney’s Office to file a 

response to the defendant’s writ of error coram nobis petition by February 16, 2016. Dkt. No. 8. 

The matter was then assigned to the undersigned attorney. The criminal case underlying the 

petition dates back to 2001. In preparation for responding to the defendant’s petition, the 

undersigned attorney has taken the following steps. The undersigned attorney ordered the closed 

case file from the USAO file archives, asked the court clerk’s office to order the 2001 case file 

from archives for this attorney’s review,1has ordered and obtained the transcripts of the 

 

1

The undersigned has been informed that the clerk’s office now has the file available for review.

Case 1:12-cv-00516-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 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

2

defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing hearings and has obtained a copy of defense counsel’s 

declaration filed in this manner in response to the defendant’s petition.

The undersigned has also commenced legal research regarding the viability of the 

petitioner’s claims. However, given the complexity of the issues and the 2012 order from Judge 

Ishii, the United States requests additional time to complete its legal research and draft its 

response. For example, the government believes that the intervening Supreme Court decision in 

Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (2013) overrules at least a portion of the Court’s 2012 

order on the coram nobis petition. The government needs additional time to conduct further 

research on the matter to determine whether intervening case precedent forecloses all of the 

defendant’s claims. 

Moreover, it appears from the record that the defendant’s counsel provided a declaration 

regarding his communications with the defendant at the court’s request without a motion or order 

finding a waiver of the attorney client privilege. The government would like the opportunity to 

make a formal motion in this regard and conduct discovery into defense counsel’s communications 

with Rianto regarding the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims in addition to the 

declaration filed with the Court.

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the United States’ motion for extension of time to file a 

response to the defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis is GRANTED. The United 

States shall file and serve its responsive pleading on or before April 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00516-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2