Cortijo v. Schultz
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-01071
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Cortijo v. Schultz, Judge Hixson ordered a response to Cortijo’s habeas petition after finding its claims legally sufficient for review.
Deangelo A. Cortijo, who challenged his state conviction and sentence, and Warden Jason Schultz, who must respond or file a procedural motion under the court’s deadlines.
What happened
Cortijo v. Schultz concerns Deangelo A. Cortijo’s petition challenging his 2021 Alameda County murder conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence. He alleged that the trial judge acted unfairly, prevented him from presenting a complete defense, and denied him a lawyer at sentencing.
The court found that the petition stated claims that could support federal relief and required Warden Jason Schultz to respond. The court did not decide whether Cortijo is entitled to have his conviction or sentence overturned.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the response and allowed the warden to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead. The warden’s response or motion is due within 91 days of the order, and Cortijo may reply under the deadlines set by the court.
The detailed version
- Cortijo v. Schultz · No. 3:25-cv-01071
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 24, 2025
Background
Deangelo A. Cortijo, identified as an inmate at California State Prison–Sacramento, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2021 conviction in Alameda County Superior Court. The opinion states that a jury convicted him of second-degree murder with personal use of a firearm and that, on June 28, 2021, he was sentenced to 25 years to life. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for discovery under California Penal Code § 754. Cortijo states that the discovery proceedings remain pending in Alameda County Superior Court. The California Supreme Court denied review in 2023.
The opinion identifies Cortijo’s petition as pro se, meaning he was representing himself. The record contained three petitions; the court treated Docket No. 4 as the operative petition, while noting that Docket Nos. 4 and 5 were both marked as amended and included additional arguments.
Claims
Cortijo alleged three grounds for federal habeas relief:
- The trial judge engaged in judicial misconduct violating due process by making statements indicating that the judge believed Cortijo was guilty, comparing Cortijo unfavorably with the prosecutor, stating several times that Cortijo had murdered the victim, denying a mistrial request after a witness said, “He killed Jamad,” and responding, “Well you did.” Cortijo also alleged that the judge repeatedly mentioned his urinating in the courtroom, restricted his ability to present his case, prevented him from objecting while acting as his own witness, interrupted his testimony, and prevented useful testimony from being placed on the record.
- The trial court prevented him from presenting a complete defense by denying his request for a continuance and requiring him to rest his case prematurely.
- The trial court denied him counsel at sentencing, which he alleges caused him to receive an aggravated sentence instead of the normal sentence he had previously received, because of the judge’s uncontrolled emotion.
Ruling
At the initial review stage under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court concluded that, liberally construed, the petition stated cognizable claims for federal habeas relief. “Cognizable” here means claims the federal court may consider under the habeas statute. The court therefore ordered Respondent to show cause why the requested writ should not be granted. This was not a decision on the merits of Cortijo’s claims.
The court ordered the Clerk to serve the order and jurisdiction-consent materials on Respondent and the Attorney General of California, and to mail a copy of the order to Cortijo. Respondent must file and serve an answer within 91 days of the order’s issuance, including relevant documents. Cortijo may file a reply within 35 days after the answer. Instead of an answer, Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 91-day period; the order sets deadlines for Cortijo’s opposition and Respondent’s reply.
The order also reminded Cortijo to serve copies of his court communications on Respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The court stated that failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The document is titled “Order to Show Cause; Granting Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,” although the opinion also states that Cortijo paid the filing fee. The conclusion does not separately describe the filing-fee ruling.
Disposition and classification
The court issued an order to show cause and directed Respondent to answer or file a procedural motion to dismiss. Because the court only found the claims legally cognizable and did not decide the underlying habeas issues, this is a procedural order rather than a merits ruling.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.