Marks v. Martel

Filing 72

ORDER Re 66 . 67 Pro Se Filings. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/14/2016. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DELANEY GERAL MARKS,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 11-CV-02458-LHK
ORDER RE PRO SE FILINGS

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 66, 67

RON DAVIS, Warden, California State
Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.

17
18

In 1994, Petitioner Delaney Geral Marks (“Petitioner”) was convicted of two counts of

19

first degree murder with personal use of a firearm, and two counts of attempted premeditated

20

murder and infliction of great bodily injury, and sentenced to death. On December 14, 2011,

21

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before this Court.

22

Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, recently filed two pro se pleadings: an Amended

23

Petition and a letter to the Court. For the following reasons, the claims within Petitioner’s pro se

24

pleadings are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

25

As a capital prisoner, Petitioner has a statutory right to counsel in these proceedings. 18

26

U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). That includes the right “for that counsel meaningfully to research and

27

present [his] habeas claims.” MacFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 858 (1994). Petitioner does not,

28

1
Case No. 11-CV-02458-LHK
ORDER RE PRO SE FILINGS

1

however, have a right to dictate tactics in the pursuit of his habeas petition. United States v. Mayo,

2

646 F.2d 369, 375 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor does he have a “a constitutional right to compel appointed

3

counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by [him], if counsel, as a matter of professional

4

judgment, decided not to present those points.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983).

5

The Court is confident that Petitioner is represented by highly qualified counsel. Petitioner

6

has not alleged a genuine conflict of interest with his counsel, who are vigorously pursuing his

7

claims. Accordingly, any substantive pleadings should be filed through Petitioner’s court-

8

appointed counsel. All of the claims raised within Petitioner’s pro se pleadings are therefore

9

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: June 14, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 11-CV-02458-LHK
ORDER RE PRO SE FILINGS