Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

OGrantAbeyance-Hlt

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

This matter is before the Court following the decision by the United States Supreme Court in 

Ryan v. Gonzales, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013). In the unanimous decision, the Court held that 

suspension of habeas corpus proceedings for an indefinite period during a petitioner’s mental 

incompetence “is inappropriate and merely frustrates the State’s attempts to defend its presumptively 

valid judgment.” Id. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 709. Prior to that, the law in this Circuit was governed by

Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that the statutory right to 

counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) carried with it a right of a condemned inmate seeking a writ of 

habeas corpus to be mentally competent to assist counsel. The Gonzales decision overruled Gates. Id. 

at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 703-06.

JOHN LEE HOLT,

 Petitioner,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of California 

State Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:97-cv-06210 AWI

ORDER REINSTITUTING PREPARATION FOR 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 206 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 6
2

OGrantAbeyance-Hlt

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On November 21, 2008, the Court issued an order granting the motion of Petitioner John Lee 

Holt (“Holt”) to stay federal proceedings, pursuant to Gates, 334 F.3d 803, until Holt could be restored 

to competence (doc. 199). Since the Gates stay order was entered, Holt’s attorneys have submitted 

biannual reports on the status of his mental condition. The last status report, filed March 6, 2013 (doc. 

204), reported that based on the evaluation conducted by CDCR psychologist Robert Sargent, Ph.D., 

there had been no material change in Holt’s mental condition. As of the date the Gonzales decision 

was issued, January 8, 2013, the Gates stay in the present litigation became void and the Court is 

obliged to avail Respondent Kevin Chappell, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin (the 

“Warden”) the opportunity to defend the State of California’s presumptively valid judgment against 

Holt.

II. Procedural Status

Holt commenced this action on December 15, 1997 with the filing of an application for counsel 

and request to stay the execution of his death sentence. On December 1, 1998, Holt filed his fully 

exhausted petition. After briefing by both parties, Holt filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing on 

May 1, 2001. While this motion was under submission, on June 20, 2002, the United States Supreme 

Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, which held that execution of a mentally retarded 

person is a violation of the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, and 

that the decision applied retroactively to all persons within the protected class. On June 18, 2003, Holt 

filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the California Supreme Court alleging a single claim, 

pursuant to Atkins, challenging the imposition of his death sentence on the grounds he is mentally 

retarded. Nine months later, on March 30, 2004, this Court issued an order granting a limited 

evidentiary hearing, as to seven guilt phase claims (doc. 96). In that Order, the Court specifically 

bifurcated the proceedings between guilt and penalty phases, deciding to address the guilt phase 

claims first, and then, if necessary resolve the penalty phase claims.

Because there was some overlap of factual issues between the state court penalty phase claim 

and the federal guilt phase claims, Holt moved the Court for an order holding federal proceedings in 

abeyance. Although the Court was not convinced abeyance was required, the motion was granted on 

October 7, 2004, largely because both parties requested that result (doc. 104). As of March 1, 2005, 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 206 Filed 11/15/13 Page 2 of 6
3

OGrantAbeyance-Hlt

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Holt requested for federal proceedings on the guilt phase claims to be reinstated and the Court granted 

his request on March 7, 2005.

The parties cooperated in conducting discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 

2254 Cases and exchanging some documents. In reviewing the file, the Court observes that Holt has 

taken the deposition of juror Billy Ross (on October 2, 2006), plus three CDCR mental health 

professionals, Lois Armstrong, Ph.D. (on November 9, 2006), Roderick Ponath, M.D. (on February 1, 

2007), and Aubrey Dent, M.D. (on February 2, 2007). On December 3, 2007, the Warden reported to 

the Court that he completed the deposition of trial counsel Charles Soria on October 5, 2007 and that 

pursuant to agreement with Holt’s counsel, the disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) for his mental health 

expert, James Missett, M.D., Ph.D., plus any other Rule 26 disclosures, would be made on February 1, 

2008. There is no indication in the file whether the exchange of documents and disclosures were made

or whether Holt conducted Dr. Missett’s deposition. No further inquiries or requests were presented 

about these matters, because in early March, 2008, the issue of a Gates stay became the focal point of 

the litigation and was not resolved for nearly nine months (from March 5 through November 21, 

2008).

III. Litigation

The seven claims for which the limited evidentiary hearing was granted involve four separate 

categories of guilt phase issues: lack of juror impartiality; Holt’s incompetence to stand trial; the trail 

attorneys’ failure to introduce a viable mental state defense during guilt phase proceedings; and the 

trail attorneys’ failure to competently address the rape charge. In this order, the Court will address the 

first three of these categories.1

A. Lack of Juror Impartiality

In Claim 9 of the Petition Holt challenges the impartiality of juror Bill Ross for his failure to 

have revealed an on-going dispute with an African-American tenant on his rental property2and the 

 

1 As noted in the 2004 Order, the only relevance of the rape conviction claims to the guilt 

phase outcome is as part of a cumulative prejudice argument. The Court may revisit the rape 

conviction claims in the future.

2

This on-going dispute, in turn, led to an assault on the tenant, and the arrest of Mr. Ross’s 

adult son, and a civil suit for damages.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 206 Filed 11/15/13 Page 3 of 6
4

OGrantAbeyance-Hlt

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fact that he had suffered from a short-term memory loss for the previous 30 years. In ruling on this 

claim the Court limited evidence to be presented at the anticipated evidentiary hearing to that which 

had been referenced in the Order, live testimony from Mr. Ross, and any evidence the Warden 

developed to refute this evidence. Several months after Holt’s attorneys conducted Mr. Ross’s 

deposition, on July 2, 2007, the Court ordered the state record expanded to include the transcript of 

Mr. Ross’s deposition (doc. 169). It appears the only tasks remaining to resolve Claim 9 are 

determining the admissibility of evidence concerning Mr. Ross’s lack of impartiality already before 

the Court and the development of any additional evidence by the Warden. 

Accordingly, the Warden is directed to come forward with a statement of any objections to the 

evidence discussed in the 2004 Order regarding Claim 9, the content of Mr. Ross’s deposition 

testimony, and exhibits appended to his deposition transcript. The Warden also is directed to provide 

an offer of proof as to evidence he would present to refute Mr. Ross’s testimony and argument that 

Mr. Ross’s deposition testimony does not support Claim 9 under the principles discussed in

McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984), Fields v. Woodford, 309 

F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 2002), and Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 1998).

B. Holt’s Incompetence to Stand Trial

Claims 11 and 12 allege Holt was incompetent to stand trial because he did not comprehend 

the proceedings, understand the decisions made regarding his defense, knowingly and intelligently 

waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he testified at guilt proceedings, or, 

when he did testify, understand the questions put to him. Claim 11 is a substantive incompetence 

claim and Claim 12 is based on ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorneys’ failure to recognize 

and act on the fact of his incompetence. The offers of proof reviewed in the 2004 Order included : the 

trial testimony and post-conviction declarations of three psychiatrists and one psychologist, Samuel 

Benson, M.D., Raul Guisado, M.D., Monte Buchsbaum, M.D., and William Pierce, Ph.D.; the 

declaration testimony of psychiatrist Roderick Pettis, M.D. and psychologist Mary Ann Kim, Ph.D.; 

the Kern County Jail medical records regarding Holt; photocopies of notes Holt recorded during jury 

selection; the trial testimony of Colorado agency mental health professionals, registered nurse Sandra 

Lane and social worker Beverly Wright; trial testimony and post-conviction declaration of former coCase 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 206 Filed 11/15/13 Page 4 of 6
5

OGrantAbeyance-Hlt

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

door-to-door salesman Cameron Bearden; and the declaration of trial attorney Charles Soria. Since 

Holt previously deposed psychiatrists Drs. Ponath, Armstrong, and Dent, and those depositions are

now part of the record, the Court surmises Holt will wish to rely on that evidence as well. None of 

the declaration testimony or documents has been made part of the record. However, the Court is 

aware that the Warden conducted Mr. Soria’s deposition in October 2007 and it’s possible a copy of 

his declaration was made an exhibit to that deposition. Both the deposition transcript and any exhibits 

would be subject a Rule 7 record expansion motion. Holt also has indicated he will call a Strickland

expert to testify about the standard for reasonably competent counsel in light of the information given 

to the trial attorneys by the testifying experts. For the purposes of this order, the Court will presume 

the Strickland expert will opine that Holt’s trial attorneys were professionally incompetent.

In light of the Court’s objective to resolve Holt’s claims without further delay, the Warden is 

directed to provide an explanation as to how he proposes to refute the offered declaration testimony,

either by cross examination or opposing experts, including his previously designated expert, Dr.

Missett, and possibly his own Strickland expert. The Warden also shall provide a summary of his 

position that the proffered evidence does not establish the allegations of Claims 11 and 12. 

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for Failure to Present a Mens Rea Defense 

Coupled Decision to Present Holt as the Sole Guilt Phase Defense Witness

Claim 13 alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure of Holt’s trial attorneys to 

advance viable mental state defenses to the five charged offenses, namely, murder, burglary, robbery, 

rape, and sodomy. After and evaluating this claim in the 2004 Order, the Court determined Holt could 

proceed with his contention that he lacked the requisite mens rea to commit the charged crimes.3 

Claim 14 alleges professional incompetence for the defense attorneys’ decision to call Holt as the sole 

guilt phase witness. In the analysis of these two claims, the Court reviewed extensive proffered 

declarations, reports, trial testimony, and argument of trial counsel recorded in the reporter’s

transcript, not all necessarily relevant to the failure to raise a mens rea defense.

 

3

Excluded from further evidentiary development were the unconsciousness and insanity 

defenses.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 206 Filed 11/15/13 Page 5 of 6
6

OGrantAbeyance-Hlt

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For these two guilt phase claims, the Court directs Holt to come forward with a statement of 

the witnesses and extra-record documentation he intends to rely upon in establishing the ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims, including whether he intends to call a Strickland expert.

IV. Case Resolution without Litigation

The present case is one of two cases pending in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of 

California that was stayed under the holding in Gates, 334 F.3d 803. In the other case, McPeters v. 

Warden, Case No. 1:95-cv-05108 LJO, the Court attempted to encourage case resolution without 

litigation. In that case, the petitioner, like Holt, suffers from various symptoms consistent with

enduring, serious psychosis. The settlement discussions in the McPeters case did not progress past a 

proposal submitted to the Warden’s attorneys by the petitioner’s attorneys.4 Since the attorneys 

representing the Warden in the present case are the same as in the McPeters case, the Court does not 

believe that initiating settlement discussions in the present case would be efficacious in bringing the 

matter to a final resolution. While the Court would be pleased to entertain settlement discussions in 

this case, any efforts in that regard will have to be initiated by the parties.

V. Order

In compliance with this order, the Warden is directed file a response to Claims 9, 11, as 12, 

within 60 days of this order. Holt shall file a response to Claims 13 and 14 in compliance with this 

order, also within 60 days. Once the Court has an opportunity to review the parties’ respective 

submissions, further briefing may be ordered, or the Court may call for a status conference. No case 

management or budgeting activity will be necessary on the part of Holt’s attorneys, as the budget 

authorized in 2005 remains viable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2013 

/s/ Anthony W. Ishii

 Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

 

4

The Court was not advised of the contents of the proposal.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 206 Filed 11/15/13 Page 6 of 6