Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00794/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00794-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DARNELL SHACK, Civil No. 12-CV-794-MMA (BGS)

Plaintiff,

(1) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER

COMPETENCY HEARING

(2) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; AND 

(3) ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER

SEAL

[Doc. Nos. 8, 10]

v.

WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden of Mule Creek State

Prison,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 26, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Doc. No. 1, Petition (“Pet.”) & Doc. No. 2. ) Petitioner challenges his conviction of 1

murder in the first degree involving the intentional and personal discharge of a firearm that caused

great bodily injury under California Penal Code sections 187 and 12022.53(b)-(d). (Pet. at 2.) On

April 4, 2012, the Court granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status. (Doc. No. 3.) 

 For consistency and ease, the Court will reference Petitioner’s and Respondent’s filed 1

documents by their court-generated page numbers. 

1 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 12
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

///

The following matters are pending before the Court: (1) a question of Petitioner’s

competence, (2) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, and (3) Respondent’s motion to file

documents under seal. 

For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES Petitioner a competency hearing,

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to

file documents under seal. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Based on the information provided in the Petition, this Court questioned Petitioner’s

competence in representing himself in this matter. (Doc. No. 5 at 2.) For instance, on page five of

his Petition, fellow inmate Buck Aaron states that Petitioner is “unable to assist himself alone, and

due to his mental state he can not comprehend on a level that is even close to being adequate to

argue his legal claims. . . .” (Pet. at 5.) It is also alleged that Petitioner is currently “on psychiatric

care/medications. . . .” (Id.) Further, according to the Petition, Petitioner was found incompetent

to stand trial three separate times between 2004 and when he was finally found competent in 2007

and tried in 2008. (Id. at 19-20.) Attached to the Petition is a declaration by Mr. Aaron, submitted

under penalty of perjury, that states (1) Petitioner cannot “communicate rationally enough most of

the time, to comprehend the need for filing in this action or determine when they are due . . .[,]” (2)

Petitioner is “on medications and under psychiatric care at this time and has been since his arrival

in the California prison system[,]” and (3) Petitioner “is only able to communicate rationally some

of the time by speaking slowly to [Petitioner] and waiting for his slow answers. . . .” (Id. at 36.) 

Accordingly, on April 16, 2012, the Court ordered Petitioner to submit additional evidence

of current incompetence, including declarations, exhibits and argument to establish that he currently

suffers from a mental illness, and that the mental illness prevents him from being able to understand

and respond to Court orders. (Doc. No. 5 at 3.) On May 14, 2012, Petitioner filed his additional

evidence: (1) a declaration by a fellow inmate, Mr. Aaron, (2) a declaration by his trial attorney,

David Semco, and (3) a portion of his mental health records. (Doc. No. 7.) 

The declaration by Mr. Aaron is the same declaration Mr. Aaron previously submitted with

2 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 12
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

the Petition. Again, it states that Petitioner cannot “communicate rationally enough most of the

time, to comprehend the need for filing in this action or determine when they are due . . .[,]” that

Petitioner is “on medications and under psychiatric care at this time and has been since his arrival

in the California prison system[,]” and that Petitioner “is only able to communicate rationally some

of the time by speaking slowly to [Petitioner] and waiting for his slow answers. . . .” (Pet. at 36 &

Doc. No. 7 at 2.) 

The declaration by Petitioner’s trial attorney, Mr. Semco, is neither signed nor dated. (Doc.

No. 7 at 5.) Based on the fax information, the declaration was made on or about July 21, 2008. (Id.) 

The declaration states that Mr. Semco was appointed to represent Petitioner on December 16, 2006,

and that Mr. Semco found it difficult to work with Petitioner. (Id.) Further, the declaration states

“Mr. Shack was totally irrational and delusional with respect to the court system and how it related

to him... and consistentlyexpressed delusional beliefs regarding his legal circumstance.” (Id.) Last,

Mr. Semco also declared that in March of 2007, Petitioner was granted a mental competencyhearing

under California Penal Code section 1368, and was ordered to be treated with antipsychotic

medication pursuant to California Penal Code section 1370. (Id.) 

The provided mental health records include portions of suicide risk assessment checklists

from December 2008, and mental health treatment program updates and interdisciplinary progress

notes from 2010, 2011 and January 2012. The mental health records indicate Petitioner is

2

diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, depressed type, and prescribed medication. (Doc. No. 7

at 8.) Further, the mental health records state Petitioner has limited vocabulary and poor

comprehension of the written word, but can understand communications when spoken slowly in

simple English or by rephrasing sentences. (Id. at 14, 34.) On July 22, 2010, a mental health

treatment program update noted Petitioner inconsistently took his medication and failed to attend

group therapy sessions at the treatment center most likely due to his paranoid delusions and fears

about being killed. (Id. at 14.) More recently, however, an interdisciplinary progress note dated

 Two documents are dated April 12, 2012. (Doc. 7 at 28-29.) However, these documents 2

provide little commentary and information regarding Petitioner and also appear incomplete. For

instance, the document on page 28 states it is “Page 3 of 6,” but its companion documents are missing. 

(Id. at 28.) 

3 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 3 of 12
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

August 30, 2011 indicated Petitioner is “doing okay,” has an appetite, is sleeping better, and his

“psychotic symptoms are under control with his psychotropic medications.” (Id. at 37-38, 40.) Last,

two interdisciplinary progress notes dated October 11, 2011 and October 27, 2011, state Petitioner

vocalized his innocence regarding his conviction. (Id. at 39-40.) 

The Court also requested Respondent to file a response to Peitioner’s additional evidence,

including Respondent’s independent investigation into Petitioner’s current competence, as well as

any legal argument and exhibits Respondent wishes the Court to consider. (Id. at 3.) Respondent

filed his response on July 26, 2012, along with a motion to file documents under seal and lodged the

proposed sealed documents. (Doc. Nos. 9-11.) 

Respondent,in conducting an independentinvestigation into Petitioner’s current competence,

obtained from Mule Creek State Prison all medical and psychological records, and has submitted

as Exhibit 1 Petitioner’s Unit Health Record. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) Respondent argues that Petitioner’s

medical records contain evidence that his thought process is within normal limits, his illness is

stabilized at this time, and he is able to communicate effectively. (Id. at 3.) Although Petitioner has

been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, depressed type, Respondent asserts that recent

medical records support that Petitioner can understand and respond to court orders. (Id. at 2-3.) In

Petitioner’s January 3, 2012 interdisciplinaryprogress note, his psychologist noted that Petitioner’s 3

“speech flow is normal. Mood is euthymic–based partially on the ‘hope’ he feels that he may get

out of prison. Judgment is fair. His thought content is appropriate to mood and circumstances. No

signs of psychosis at this time.” (Doc. No. 11 at 108.) 

Respondent asserts that Petitioner has only submitted a sworn declaration from a fellow

inmate, Mr. Aaron, acting as his “jail house lawyer,” and has not submitted a declaration from a

psychiatrist or psychologist stating that Petitioner’s mental illness prevents him from being able to

understand and respond to court orders. (Doc. No. 9 at 3.) Respondent argues that Mr. Aaron does

not have the training (1) to make a determination as to whether Petitioner can understand and

respond to court orders, (2) to ascertain if Petitioner is malingering, or (3) to determine whether

 When citing Petitioner’s interdisciplinary progress notes, Respondent indicated the date was 3

January 13, 2012. However, after careful review of the record, the Court finds the date is January 3,

2012. 

4 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 4 of 12
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

there are other reasons behind Petitioner’s alleged inability to understand and respond to court

orders. (Id. at 3-4.) Moreover, Respondent submits that the declaration from Petitioner’s trial

counsel was from 2008 and discusses events in 2006 and 2007, thereby not showing Petitioner’s

current level of competence. (Id. at 4.) 

Subsequently, on August 31, 2012, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s response. (Doc.

No. 14.) Petitioner reiterated his position and suggested the Court look to criminal competency

hearing standards in determining whether this civil competency hearing should be granted. (Doc.

No. 14 at 2-3.)

Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel filed

on June 4, 2012. Previously, on April 13, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel

requesting the Court appoint counsel because (1) Petitioner is not trained in the law and has limited

access to the prison law library; (2) Petitioner presents a prima facie case his liberty interest under

the United States Constitution was violated; and (3) Petitioner “suffers from various mental

disorders, and is under different psychotropic medications. . . .” (Doc. No. 4 at 2.) The Court

denied the motion without prejudice on April 18, 2012 finding such a determination to be premature

until Petitioner’s competency was ascertained. (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) After submitting additional

evidence of incompetency, Petitioner filed the instant motion for appointment of counsel requesting

the Court appoint counsel because Petitioner does not have the ability to comprehend or

communicate rationally with this Court. (Doc. No. 8 at 1-2.) 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Competency Hearing

1. Legal Standard

In Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit held that where a

petitioner submits “substantial evidence” of his incompetence, the district court should hold a

competency hearing to determine whether a petitioner is “competent under an appropriate standard

for habeas petitioners.” Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153-54. The Ninth Circuit rationalized that a

competency hearing is required to determine if a guardian ad litem should be appointed. Id. at 1153

(“Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c), courts are required to ‘appoint a guardian ad litem for an ...

5 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 5 of 12
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

incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems

proper for the protection of the ... incompetent person.’ This Rule equally applies to habeas

petitioners.” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c))). The Ninth Circuit further determined “counsel should

be appointed for the limited purpose of representing the petitioner at the competency hearing as

required by Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, should the district court determine

it advisable.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit did not specify what constitutes “substantial evidence” of incompetence

in support of a competency hearing, but it did provide some guidance. In Allen, the petitioner

submitted his own sworn declaration and a declaration from a fellow inmate which stated that he

was mentally impaired and did not understand the court’s orders. Id. at 1151. Further, the petitioner

submitted a letter from a prison psychiatrist which stated that he was in the Enhanced Outpatient

Program (“EOP”) at the prison, had been “diagnosed with Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia

and [was] taking two psychotropic medications.” Id. at 1151-52. The petitioner also stated in a

declaration in support of a motion for appointment of counsel that he suffered from a “‘debilitating

mental illness that requires a course of treatment that includes the use of various psychotropic

medications’” and that the mental illness combined with the medications “‘severely [hinder] his

ability to comprehend or correctly respond to the determinations and Orders made by the Court.’” 

Id. at 1152. The Ninth Circuit found “[t]hose submissions established that ‘he suffer[ed] from a

mental illness, the mental illness prevent[ed] him from being able to understand and respond to the

court’s order, and he was still suffering from the illness during the relevant time period,’ and [thus 4

determined] there was sufficient evidence for the district court to have appointed counsel for the

petitioner to represent him at a competency hearing.” Thompson v. Virga, 2012 WL 1154473, at *1

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2012) (quoting Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153-54). 

Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit has signaled that showing a history of serious mental illness

is not enough by itself to constitute substantial evidence of incompetence requiring a court to

conduct a competency hearing on that issue. See West v. Brown, 197 Fed. Appx. 625, 628 (9th Cir.

2006); Travalini v. People of California, 2006 WL 842435, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2006). 

 The relevant time period is during the ongoing habeas proceeding. Allen, 408 F.3d at 1152. 4

6 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 6 of 12
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

Moreover, various lower courts have determined meeting the threshold of substantial evidence of

incompetence thereby requiring a court to conduct a competency hearing is extremely difficult. See,

e.g., Thompson, 2012 WL 1154473, at *2-3 (holding the petitioner failed to submit substantial

evidence of incompetence by (1) not providing medical records from the relevant time period (i.e.

during ongoing habeas proceeding), (2) not submitting any declarations from inmates or medical

personnel attesting to alleged incompetence, and (3) effectively litigating the case without counsel);

Lavery v. Singh, 2011 WL 5975934, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011) (finding the petitioner failed

to submit substantial evidence of incompetence by not submitting any relevant and recent evidence

of current incompetence, other than his own declaration, which was refuted by the current medical

records provided by the respondent); McElroy v. Cox, 2009 WL 4895360, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11,

2009) (concluding the petitioner failed to submit substantial evidence of incompetence because,

despite providing recent medical records supporting diagnosis of a mental disability, the petitioner

functions well when properly medicated and there is no nexus between his mental disorder and his

ability to articulate his claims); McDonald v. Waddington, 2009 WL 302279, *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb

6, 2009) (holding the petitioner’s failed to submit substantial evidence of incompetence because the

petitioner functions well when properlymedicated and there is no nexus between his mental disorder

and his ability to articulate his claims). 

2. Analysis

In the present case, the Court finds, that despite being diagnosed with schizoaffective

disorder, depressed type, under Allen Petitioner has failed to provide substantial evidence of

incompetence to support holding a competency hearing because Plaintiff’s mental illness does not

prevent him from being able to understand and respond to court orders, and he is not suffering from

the mental illness during the relevant time period (i.e. this ongoing habeas proceeding). 

For instance, Petitioner failed to submit his own sworn declaration that he is mentally

impaired and does not understand the Court or the judicial process. Although like in Allen,

Petitioner admits he does not have the ability to communicate rationally with this Court in his

motion for appointment of counsel, unlike in Allen, Petitioner fails to provide a declaration

regarding same. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) This missing component weighs against a finding of substantial

7 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 7 of 12
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

evidence. 

Petitioner’s submission of Mr. Aaron’s declaration is both redundant and lacking. Mr.

Aaron’s declaration was previously submitted with the Petition, and the Court found that Mr.

Aaron’s declaration did not rise to the level of substantial evidence outlined in Allen. (Doc. No. 5

at 2.) Moreover, as Respondent correctly notes, Mr. Aaron does not have the training to make a

determination as to whether Petitioner can understand and respond to court orders, ascertain if

Petitioner is malingering, or surmise whether there are other reasons behind Petitioner’s alleged

inability to understand and respond to court orders. As in Allen, without more, Mr. Aaron’s

observations provide little substantial evidence. 

Petitioner also failed to provide a letter or declaration from his treating prison psychiatrist

outlining his diagnosis, medications and treatment program. In Allen, the petitioner’s letter from

his prison psychiatrist stating that he was (1) in the EOP at the prison, (2) diagnosed with Chronic

Undifferentiated Schizophrenia, and (3) taking two psychotropic medications, helped establish

substantial evidence, and yet, in the instant case, this information is absent. 

The declaration by Petitioner’s trial attorney, Mr. Semco, is outdated. For instance, based

on the fax information, the declaration is over four years old. The Allen decision mandates that this

Court consider Petitioner’s mental health at “the relevant time period,” which is during this ongoing

habeas proceeding. Allen, 408 F.3d at 1152. As such, Mr. Semco’s assessment of Petitioner in 2007

that “Mr. Shack was totally irrational and delusional with respect to the court system and how it

related to him ... and consistently expressed delusional beliefs regarding his legal circumstance,”

provides little, if any, substantial evidence of Petitioner’s competency today. 

Statements in his Petition and in Mr. Semco’s declaration that Petitioner received mental

competency hearings pursuant to California Penal Code section 1368 provides little substantial

evidence of current incompetency. Because Allen states this Court consider Petitioner’s mental

health during this habeas proceeding, Id., prior grants by a state trial court of mental competency

hearings appear extraneous. 

///

///

8 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 8 of 12
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

Most notably, the Court’s review of Petitioner’s mental health records reveals, that despite 5

being diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, depressed type, Petitioner is mentally stable, aware

of the pending proceedings and communicates effectively. That is, Petitioner’s mental health

records show that Petitioner can effectively respond to court orders, and provide no substantial

evidence of incompetency. 

a. Evidence of Stability and Awareness

In various interdisciplinary progress notes, the following evidence of Petitioner’s mental

stability and awareness of these pending proceedings was exhibited: (1) on April 24, 2012,

Petitioner “is very attentive and contributes to his groups,” and asked to receive copies of his

medical records; (Doc. No. 11 at 91-92) (2) on April 12, 2012, Petitioner reported “that his current

mental health symptoms are stabilized due to his attendance in his groups and his 1:1 [(i.e. one-onone)] case management contacts[;]” (Id. at 93) (3) on April 9, 2012, Petitioner stated “he worries

way too much about not being heard or understood about his case and how much he believes he is

an innocent man in jail for a crime he did not do[;]” (Id. at 94) (4) on April 4, 2012, Petitioner’s

psychiatrist noted in an interdisciplinary progress note that in 2010 Petitioner hit his head against

a wall, attempted to overdose, and tried to starve himself to death, but that presently Petitioner is

stable, has been off his medication for one year, and has no deterioration; (Id. at 95-96) (5) on

January 3, 2012, Petitioner’s “speech flow is normal. Mood is euthymic–based partially on the

‘hope’ he feels that he may get out of prison. Judgment is fair. His thought content is appropriate

to mood and circumstances. No signs of psychosis at this time[;]” (Id. at 108) and (6), four separate

one page notes taken by Thomas Haspel, M.D. state Petitioner is stable. (Id. at 112, 116, 120, 124.) 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s mental health records indicate he is mentally stable and cognizant ofthese

pending proceedings. 

 The Allen decision mandates that this Court must consider Petitioner’s mental health at “the 5

relevant time period,” which is during this ongoing habeas proceeding. Allen, 408 F.3d at 1152. 

Although Petitioner submitted a portion of his mental health records, these records are neither current

nor complete. For example, Petitioner submitted portions of suicide risk assessment checklist from

December 2008, and mental health treatment program updates and interdisciplinary progress notes

predominately from 2010 to 2011, but little from 2012. Nevertheless, Respondent provided a full copy

of Petitioner’s medical records, including documents dated as recently as April of this year. As such, the

documents provided by Respondent are the most relevant documents the Court reviewed. 

9 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 9 of 12
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

b. Evidence of Effective Communication

Various reports state Petitioner can effectively communicate. For instance, on February 29,

2012 and December 14, 2011, during two separate consultations it was noted “effective

communication [with Petitioner] was achieved by talking slowly to the patient in a face-to-face

meeting.” (Id. at 32, 71.) Further, a primary care progress note on February 3, 2012, stated

Petitioner demonstrated effective communication by repeating information back in his own words. 

(Id. at 30.) In another prior primary care provider progress note dated November 3, 2011, the

physician noted, “Patient asked and answered appropriate questions. He repeated information back

in his own words and showed effective communication.” (Id. at 36.) Moreover, within the last year,

Petitioner has effectively filled out his portion of at least five health care service request forms. (See

Id. at 33, 35, 38, 40, 76.) And finally, four separate one page notes taken by Thomas Haspel, M.D.

state effective communication was established with Petitioner by speaking slowing and having

Petitioner paraphrase what was said to demonstrate understanding. (Id. at 112, 116, 120, 124.) As

such, Petitioner’s mental health records indicate he can communicate effectively. 

Overall, the mental health records indicate that despite being diagnosed with schizoaffective

disorder, depressed type, Petitioner is mentally stable, aware of the pending proceedings and

communicates effectively. In other words, the mental health records show that Petitioner can

effectively respond to court orders, and provide no substantial evidence of incompetency. 

In sum, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to provide substantial evidence of incompetency

required to hold a competency hearing because Plaintiff’s mental illness does not prevent him from

being able to understand and respond to court orders, and he is not presently suffering from the

mental illness. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner a competency hearing. 

B. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by

state prisoners. McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991); Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196

(9th Cir. 1986); Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). Financially eligible

habeas petitioners seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, however, may obtain representation

whenever “the court determines that the interests ofjustice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B);

10 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 10 of 12
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

Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234

(9th Cir. 1984). Unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel in a 28

U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding is within the discretion of the district court. Terrovona, 912 F.2d at 1177; 6

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed because he is unable to comprehend or

communicate rationally with this Court as to the defense in this action. (Doc. No. 8 at 1-2.) But,

as noted above, the Court finds Petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence of incompetency

required to hold a competency hearing. Further, although assisted byMr. Aaron, Petitioner has been

able to understand and respond to Court orders. As such, Petitioner’s request for the appointment

of counsel on the basis of incompetency and inability to communicate rationally falls short in

establishing that counsel should be provided at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel. 

C. Respondent’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal

On July 26, 2012, Respondent filed a response to Petitioner’s additional evidence of

incompetence that included all of Petitioner’s medical and psychological records from Mule Creek

State Prison. (Doc. No. 9.) As such, Respondent concurrently filed a motion to seal these

documents and lodged the proposed sealed documents. (Doc. Nos. 9-11.) Considering the proposed

documents to be sealed are medical and psychiatric records, the Court agrees that these documents

should be sealed, and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to file under seal. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

 If an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an attorney to represent a 6

petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. §3006A. See Rule 8, 28 U.S.C. foll.

§2254.

11 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 11 of 12
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this Court DENIES Petitioner a competency hearing,

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, and GRANTS Respondent’s motion to

file documents under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2012

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

12 12cv794MMA

Case 3:12-cv-00794-MMA-BGS Document 15 Filed 09/17/12 Page 12 of 12