Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01646/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01646-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

The claim that the trial court refused to adequately poll the jurors, see page 27 (Ground VIII)

of handwritten attachment to amended petition, is a non-cognizable state law claim. See Aug. 10, 2001

Order To Show Cause, p. 4. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN TRACEY HILL,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE M. GALAZA,

Respondent. /

No. C 01-1646 SI (pr)

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING 

The court needs supplemental briefing on five claims asserted by petitioner in his

amended petition that respondent did not address in his answer. Respondent's oversight appears

to have been caused by the unusually confusing manner in which petitioner presented his claims.

Petitioner asserted grounds 1-5 in the form petition and then attached handwritten pages 9-31

in which he discussed grounds I - XI, many of which overlapped and were redundant of the

arguments in form petition. See Amended Petition (docket # 63). As a result, there were not

five claims and there were not 16 claims, but somewhere in between those numbers. The court

sees 11 claims, although only 10 of them are cognizable in a federal habeas action.1

 

Here are the specific claims on which the court needs briefing.

1. Petitioner's claim concerning the denial of his request for re-appointment of

counsel on November 3, 1997. This claim is part of the argument at pages 18-21

(Ground III) and 25-26 (Ground VII) of the handwritten attachment to the

Case 3:01-cv-01646-SI Document 75 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

amended petition. Respondent's answer addressed only the part of the claim that

concerned the denial of a continuance.

2. Petitioner's claim concerning the court's denial of his request for a continuance on

November 14, 1997. This is the claim at pages 21-22 (Ground IV) of the

handwritten attachment to the amended petition.

3. Petitioner's claim that his rights to counsel, due process and a speedy trial were

violated "as a result of incompetence, multiple changes in court-appointed counsel

causing serious disruption and delay to petitioner's case." This is the claim at

pages 14-17 (Ground II) of the handwritten attachment to the amended petition

4. Petitioner's claim that he was denied his right to meaningfully prepare his defense,

thereby infringing his Faretta right and his right of access to the courts. This is the

claim at pages 23-24 (Ground V) of the handwritten attachment to the amended

petition. 

5. Petitioner's claim that he was denied his right to counsel when the court denied his

motion for appointment of counsel for sentencing and a motion for new trial. This

is the claim at page 30 (Ground X) of the handwritten attachment to the amended

petition. 

The supplemental briefing may address only the claims identified above. The court will not

entertain further argument about the other claims in the amended petition that the parties already

have addressed. 

Respondent must file and serve his supplement to his answer no later than May 11, 2007.

Petitioner must file and serve his supplement to his traverse no later than June 8, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 2, 2007 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cv-01646-SI Document 75 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2