Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-02458/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-02458-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

Case No. 11-CV-02458-LHK 

ORDER RE PRO SE FILINGS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DELANEY GERAL MARKS,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden, California State 

Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

Case No. 11-CV-02458-LHK 

ORDER RE PRO SE FILINGS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 66, 67

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

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

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

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

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

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

pleadings are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

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

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

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

Case 5:11-cv-02458-LHK Document 72 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 11-CV-02458-LHK 

ORDER RE PRO SE FILINGS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

claims. Accordingly, any substantive pleadings should be filed through Petitioner’s courtappointed counsel. All of the claims raised within Petitioner’s pro se pleadings are therefore 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-02458-LHK Document 72 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 2