Pierre Haobsh v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, et al.
Whether the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief based on alleged procedural violations and false evidence constitutes a violation of due process rights
On iko Courf"? h&i/n pufoLfair o (ObioHn^j ^l/iroi/tgki Frau J on Fko (Lourp ar^FalsoL^r^oiAWnf diAoto pJE>orn/ fp pAufy j^. bbb^F'T or Jun s nartfty rOflAuiOUS dui 1^ piuin pruvis/oos bt r!<(0PK (aren'tpreceJe^f or WS, C_. . .Sitr/l n/xn / „.. . r>rfs’r J P \ ’ _ f >v Z\ ‘ . . ■'Iihe. He^p d^/rPe. C^r US H7j) -for A.rh'oU ofth&UP Q 1 i s> tk tho. preo~oqa t, o-p ^(/'rpe^ncob uA J '^/dctS af&~t& bfO'pfbvibAi t I ABLE OF AuTHORILIES CrrED CASES I~/ec.I< V. Huwphrey 511 US. 777 (WW) Statu tee aud ft. ul es FdErail Rul&s oP Eii/(l 'Proc&dufE&0 EJoTE Ln C.erffrul DistnofoF CctltPornia L&S Antydps Did Uo, /yianJaoaas M ILS. UrSTr,'cf Cou/'L to Cc^peJ UA. Atiomey pros&cate.prison OFfEtals Er obsEi4£,h'^i g /A<eHab&ps /kT5 HAO0S/7CvuEf and v/laidA ih.(5 (L&ur/granld_ Bp'tn dccKef ffZHMHZ SbE' Dkt-Entries in Federal fftCEK