Garcia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH A. GARCIA, Case No. 19-cv-07600-VC

Petitioner,

ORDER REQUESTING

v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

ROBERT BURTON,

Respondent.

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs on the following issues: First, it appears that the California Superior Court simply forgot to rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claims alleged in Garcia’s state habeas petition which were not part of the evidentiary hearing. Is there anything in the record suggesting that the state court did not inadvertently overlook these claims? If not, is review of these claims—and/or of the cumulative prejudice question—de novo? See, e.g., Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 298-303 (2013); Ford v. Peery, -- F.3d --, 2020 WL 5757015, at *8 (9th Cir. 2020); Kipp v. Davis, 971 F.3d 939, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2020); Murray v. Schriro, 882 F.3d 778, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2018); Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2013). Second, assuming de novo review of these claims, is an evidentiary hearing on the claims not addressed by the state court (or on the cumulative prejudice question) warranted? If so,…