Villa v. Matteson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 LUIS ADOLFO VILLA, Case No. 20-cv-05611-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. Re: ECF No. 1 14 GISELLE MATTESON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Luis Adolfo Villa, an inmate at the California State Prison in Vacaville, filed this action 19 seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 His petition is now before the court 20 for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 21 the United States District Courts. This order requires the respondent to respond to the petition. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pet. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations 1 STATEMENT 2 Following his involvement in a stabbing that killed an individual, a jury in San Mateo County 3 Superior Court convicted Mr. Villa of second-degree murder with certain enhancements based on 4 his age, the use of a knife, and his prior conviction.2 The court sentenced him to 36 years to life in 5 prison.3 6 Mr. Villa appealed his conviction, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California 7 Supreme Court denied his petition for review.4 8 9 ANALYSIS 10 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody 11 pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 12 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 13 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 14 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 15 not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 16 entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 17 Mr. Villa alleges that the state court proceedings violated his rights under the Sixth and 18 Fourteenth Amendments.5 Upon review of his petition, the court cannot say that his claims are 19 patently without merit. The respondents must respond to those claims. 20 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the foregoing reasons, 23 1. The petition warrants a response. 24 25 2 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 8–9 (¶¶ 2–3). 3 Id. at 9 (¶ 4). 26 4 Id. (¶¶ 5–6). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment but reversed the 27 findings relating to the prior-conviction allegations. Id. (¶ 5). The trial court also later struck certain enhancements. Id. (¶ 7). 1 2. The clerk must serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition upon the respondent and 2 || the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California and include a copy of the 3 “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction” form. 4 3. The clerk must electronically serve a copy of this order upon the respondent and the 5 respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 6 address: SFAWTParalegals @doj.ca.gov. The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via the 7 Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system for the Northern District of California. 8 5. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before October 16, 2020, an 9 answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing 10 || cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. The respondent must file with the answer 11 a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are 12 || relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petitioner. 5 13 6. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the 14 || court and serving it on the respondent on or before November 16, 2020. 2 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 Dated: August 17, 2020 LAS 18 LAUREL BEELER 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28