Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00228-4/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ALEXANDER BALBUENA,

Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BITER, Warden, and

THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL, 

Respondents. /

No. C 11-0228 RS (PR)

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

The Ninth Circuit has remanded this federal habeas action to this Court so as to allow

petitioner to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to amend the petition

to add a new claim, that is, whether the Miranda warnings were constitutionally inadequate. 

The action is REOPENED, and the Clerk is directed to amend the docket accordingly and

notify the parties. The Court reminds the parties that the judgment and the order denying the

petition are still in effect. 

Petitioner must file his Rule 60(b) motion on or before March 7, 2014. Failure to file

by such date will be deemed a waiver of the opportunity afforded by the remand, and the

action will be closed. Respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s motion on or before

Case 3:11-cv-00228-RS Document 29 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

May 7, 2014. If petitioner chooses to respond to respondent’s filing, he must do so on or

before June 7, 2014. The matter will be deemed submitted for decision on June 8, 2014. 

Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be granted

provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

The Court reiterates that in indicating its willingness to entertain the motion, the

Court makes no comment on the merits of such a motion, or that it is inclined to grant

or deny it. Also, the Court is willing to consider only whether to allow amendment as to the

one new claim, that is, that the Miranda warnings were constitutionally inadequate. No other

claim(s) will be considered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2014 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00228-RS Document 29 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2