Cilluffo v. Vega
Filing
5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 4/17/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 2/14/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
THOMAS JOSEPH CILLUFFO,
Plaintiff.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No.17-cv-00310-SK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
OSCAR VEGA,
Defendant.
12
13
Petitioner Thomas Joseph Cilluffo, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
14
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Napa County, which is in this district, so venue
15
is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
BACKGROUND
16
17
Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of California in and
18
for the County of Napa. On February 26, 2015, he was sentenced to 3 years of felony probation.
19
Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which
20
affirmed the decision in 2015, and the Supreme Court of California, which denied review of a
21
petition in 2016.
DISCUSSION
22
23
A. Legal Standard
24
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
25
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
26
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall
27
"award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not
28
be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
1
entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations
2
in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See
3
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims
4
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the claim that the trial court gave
5
6
two special instructions proffered by the prosecutor, which shifted the burden of proof to
7
Petitioner in order to prove that he was not guilty. Specifically, the jury was instructed that in
8
order to assert a citizen’s arrest, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to prove beyond a reasonable
9
doubt that the party subject to arrest was guilty of all of the elements in the instruction of assault
with a deadly weapon. Petitioner asserts this was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Fourteenth Amendment and that such directions “subvert the presumption of innocence accorded
12
to accused persons” and “invades the truthfinding task assigned solely to juries.” Carella v.
13
California, 491 U.S. 263, 265 (1989). Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28
14
U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from respondents.
CONCLUSION
15
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:
16
1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and all
17
18
attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on
19
petitioner.
20
2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the date of
21
this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section
22
2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent
23
shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the
24
administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the
25
petition.
3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the
26
court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.
27
28
//
2
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated:
3
4
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?