Roman

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISIDRO ROMAN, Case No. 16-cv-02985-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 45 10 S. FRAUENHEIM, 11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 14 challenging a 1994 state court conviction. Almost three years ago, the Court dismissed this 15 petition as procedurally defaulted. Now pending before the Court is petitioner’s “Motion to 16 Reconsider [the] Unresolved Issue of Controversy With Respect[] to Ineffective Trial Counsel.” 17 Dkt. No. 45. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES this motion. 18 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 19 The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges petitioner’s 1994 state court 20 conviction on the grounds that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by 21 failing to disclose various pieces of exculpatory evidence showing that the victim posed a threat to…