Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06102/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diego Burgos
Plaintiff
Michael Sexton
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIEGO BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL SEXTON,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06102-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: ECF 1

Petitioner Diego Burgos, a state prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the required filing fee and consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. ECF 1, 3. For the reasons below, the Court ORDERS Respondent 

Michael Sexton to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was convicted of abusing and killing a child, C. M. According to the 

petition, after a jury trial in Monterey County Superior Court, Petitioner was convicted of

second-degree murder, assault on a child resulting in death, corporal injury to a child, and 

child endangerment. On January 9, 2013, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to 37 years to 

life in prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on April 18, 2016, 

and the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review on July 27, 2016. Petitioner

filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 25, 2017.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

Case 3:17-cv-06102-WHO Document 4 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 17-cv-06102-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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).

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to 

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that 

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary 

dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 

491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court’s admission of Petitioner’s statement to the 

police, taken after Petitioner allegedly invoked his right to remain silent, denied Petitioner

his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; (2) the trial court’s refusal to grant a 

mistrial or admonish the jury regarding Aracely M.’s testimony about her fear that 

Petitioner sexually assaulted C.M. denied Petitioner his Fourteenth Amendment right to 

due process; (3) the admission of a photograph showing the infant victim C.M. laying in a 

hospital bed on life support, with a rosary draped across his body, rendered Petitioner’s

trial fundamentally unfair in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process; 

(4) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on CALCRIM No. 361; and (5) the 

cumulative effect of the state court’s errors denied Petitioner his Fourteenth Amendment 

right to due process.

These claims, argued in detail and with reference to Supreme Court law and the 

factual record, are not vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or 

false. Thus, summary dismissal is not appropriate, and a response to the petition is 

warranted. The Court therefore ORDERS Respondent to show cause why the petition 

should not be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Respondent is directed to file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty 

Case 3:17-cv-06102-WHO Document 4 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 17-cv-06102-NC 3

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

Northern District of California

(60) 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 must 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 must do so by filing a traverse with

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is 

filed.

In lieu of an answer, Respondent may file, within sixty (60) days, a motion to 

dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of 

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner

must file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent 

must file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the 

date any opposition is filed.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a magistrate judge jurisdiction consent 

form, a copy of this order, and the petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and 

Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. Respondent must 

file his magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form no later than thirty (30) days from the 

filing date of this order.

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06102-WHO Document 4 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 3