Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01266/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01266-0/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

EUREKA DIVISION

DANIEL TILBURY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-1266 NJV (PR)

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT

TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in

this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has also applied

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate

Judge. 

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of first degree murder for the killing of his ex-wife after he

shot her seven times with a .50 caliber pistol. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in

prison.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

Case 4:15-cv-01266-HSG Document 3 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject

to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,

1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his rights were

violated by the trial court’s failure to define the term “provocation” in the manslaughter

instruction; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to modify the jury instructions on murder and

manslaughter as requested by trial counsel; (3) the trial court erred by using a murder

instruction which did not instruct that lack of provocation is an element of murder; (4) the

trial court committed structural error by refusing in advance to answer questions from the

jury; (5) he was deprived of the right to present a defense by the trial court’s exclusion of

evidence regarding petitioner’s concerns about his children’s welfare; (6) there was

insufficient evidence to establish the malice element; (7) the trial court violated his rights by

not permitting trial counsel to conduct voir dire on the jury’s predisposition regarding

manslaughter; (8) cumulative error of the above claims; (9) ineffective assistance of

counsel due to the failure to assert an unconsciousness defense; (10) ineffective

assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to the admission of irrelevant and

prejudicial evidence; (11) ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to the

prosecutor’s misconduct in closing argument; and (12) cumulative error arising from trial

counsel’s errors. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form on respondent and

Case 4:15-cv-01266-HSG Document 3 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall

serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56)

days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

the court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the

answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the

date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the court and serve

on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner

must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01266-HSG Document 3 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3