CAN I, JONATHAN ANDREW HAMPTON, AN INDIGENT PRISONER, SIGSI(A) PETITIONER ANA 42 USCS SI983 CIVIL RIGHTS PIAINTIFF, APPEARING IN PROPRIA PERSONA BEFORE THE BAR OF THIS REVEREDCOURT, REQUEST THAT THE COURT INVOKE S LUN S B ON U L SI GRANTING REVIEW OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. VNDER THE PRONISION FOUND IN THE SUPREME COURT RULE 2O.I , THAT CAN BE EXECISED IN THIS COURTS S APPEUATE JURISDICTION.

WHEN,THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENIED THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMVS THAT WAS TIMEMY FILED AND DENIED ON AECEMBER 17THt, ZOIa.(Ex A.)

WHERE, THE PETITIONER SAUGHT TO HAVE THE U.S.CA. ISSVE AN ORDER DIRECTING D N D N S 2HL GRANT PETITTONER'S TIMELY FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANBAMUS. THAT WAS SEPERATELY FILED AS AN ATTACHMENT IN OPERATION WTTH, AND IN CONjUNCTION WITH, PEITONER /PLAINTIFF'S ONGOINg SI9S3 CINIL RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS.

THAT WAS AENIED ON OCTOBER 7TH, ZOI9 (EX B.)

PETITIONER I PIAINTIFF SEEKS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM THE USAC. IN THE FORM OF MANDAMUS FIUSI(A)(B) TO ENJOIN THE CAUFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTFULLY PRESERVED FEDERAL QUESTIONS THAT CALIFARNIA HAS LEFT OPEN AND UNADARESSED FOR OVER 22 YEARS.UNDER SI331

BY GRANTING THE PETITION, DIRECTING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO VACATE IT ORDER GRANTING RENIEW IN CASE NO.S2SO833 (EXC) REMANDING THE CAUSE DOWN TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, 3R APPELLATE DOTRICT CASE NO: CO8TISI WITH DIRECTIONS THAT WERE TOTAHM VOTD OF ADARESSING PETONER'S CENTRAL SUBMISSION. OF HIS FEDERALIZEO CLAIM THAT ARE NOW VENERATED IN SOLEMNITY CORAM JUDICE.

II

DOES THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURTS HOIDING IN PEOPIEV. BRENERMAN (1998), SUPRA. 19 CAL. 4tM AT P9.168 AFFIRMING" THAT THE RUIE REQUIRING SUA SPONTE INSTRUCTIONS ON ALL LESSER NECESSARILY INCLUDED OFFENSES SUPPORTED BY THE EVTDENCEIN A NON CAPITAL CASE DERIES EXCIUSIVELY FROM CAUFORNIA LAN"P.IG9) INADVERTENTIY IMPOSE AN UNLAWFUL STATE OF AMBIGUITY WHEN FACED WITH THE FEDERAL OILEMMA THAT HAMPTON NOW PROPERIY PRESENTS.

I

DOES THE DUE PROCESS CIAVSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, REQUIRE PECUIAIR CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JURY

Does the California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Breverman (1998) inadvertently impose an unlawful state of ambiguity when faced with the federal rule that now properly presents?