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)

Download PDF
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?