Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00679-0/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)

---

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

 The reporter’s transcript for May 6, 1999, which has been lodged with the court, is missing 1

the relevant pages (34-49). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL BRIDGEFORTH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-01-0679 DFL JFM P

vs.

A. C. NEWLAND, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his fourth claim, petitioner contends that the trial

court erred in denying several motions for substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden, 2

Cal. 3d 118 (1970) (Marsden motions). From a review of the petition and traverse, it appears

that petitioner is challenging the outcome of Marsden hearings held on August 5, 1998, May 5,

1999, and May 6, 1999, and also, possibly, hearings held on May 2, 1998 and July 30, 1998. 

(See Pet. at 6; Traverse at 16.) None of the trial transcripts relevant to these hearings has been

lodged with this court. 

1

/////

Case 2:01-cv-00679-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 2
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

 After a review of petitioner’s fourth claim contained in the petition before this court, the 2

court finds that petitioner has stated only a claim that the trial court erred in denying his motions for

substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden. Although petitioner makes other confusing and

conclusory allegations, particularly with respect to trial counsel’s performance and an undefined

conflict of interest, he has not stated any other cognizable claim. “It is well-settled that [c]onclusory

allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief."

Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.

1994)). All of petitioner’s allegations, other than his claim of a Marsden violation, do not meet the

specificity requirement. Accordingly, this court will address only petitioner’s claims regarding the

denial of his motions for substitute counsel. 

2

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases provides that the court may

direct that the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant

to the determination of the merits of the petition. The court finds that the transcripts of the

Marsden hearings held in this case are necessary to a determination of the merits of petitioner’s

Marsden claims. 

2

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty

days from the date of this order, respondent shall lodge the transcripts of all motions for

substitution of counsel held in this case and a supplemental answer responding to all of

petitioner’s Marsden claims.

DATED: August 5, 2005.

/008;bridg679.aug

Case 2:01-cv-00679-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2