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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?