Opinion
Civil Case No. 05-313-KKC.
December 16, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
From reading the multitude of briefs filed by the pro se petitioner, it is evident that he wishes to raise two main issues, namely, whether his shackling at trial violated his constitutional rights and whether the trial court should have held an "ex parte hearing" to address his request to discharge counsel. Although he has repeatedly indicated that he is raising only these two issues, he also argues that his trial and appellate counsel were "ineffective" for various reasons. See DE#17, p. 5; DE#26, p. 1-2; DE#27, p. 1. Petitioner explains that "all the other grounds based on the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are only being submitted to this Court, in order to support the `material facts' on the Grounds E and F [his two main issues]". DE#21, p. 1; DE#26, p. 2. However, he also appears to ask for his petition to be held in abeyance while he exhausts state remedies with respect to some ineffectiveness claims. DE#26, p. 5. Given the petitioner's conflicting assertions, it is difficult to discern his position.
In an effort to clarify matters, petitioner is directed to notify this Court in writing whether he is asserting only his two claims of trial court error "E and F". If he also wishes to assert any of the "ineffectiveness" claims contained in his second amended petition, then he shall clearly identify by number which ones he is asserting. Accordingly,
It is ORDERED that:
a) petitioner shall notify this Court in writing by January 20, 2005 whether he wishes to proceed only on his two main claims (E and F);
b) if petitioner is also asserting any claims of "ineffective assistance of counsel" from his second amended petition, he shall identify them by number in his notification to the Court;
c) such notification shall be concise, i.e. limited to one page, and no further argument or legal citation shall be included.