Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01264-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

L. GONZALEZ, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:09-cv-01264-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR COURT TO HOLD A COMPETENCY 

HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 17(c) 

(ECF No. 145)

)

)

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Gonzales (sued as L. Gonzalez) and Murrieta arising out of an alleged assault following the 

takedown of Plaintiff by Defendant Gonzales on June 9, 2008. A jury trial is set for April 28, 

2015.

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 21, 2009. Since that time, he has litigated this case 

through screening, discovery, summary judgment, and a successful appeal. Recently, he has 

filed trial-related motions and documents, including a pretrial statement, a motion for the 

attendance of incarcerated witnesses, motions regarding evidence, motions in limine, proposed 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 169 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 6
2

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

voir dire, and a proposed verdict form. (ECF Nos. 127, 128, 134, 141, 144, 146, 147.) Plaintiff 

also participated in a trial confirmation hearing, appearing in front of the Court by telephone on 

March 3, 2015, without the assistance of counsel or any other individuals. (ECF No. 137.) 

During the conference, Plaintiff actively participated, appeared to understand the nature of the 

proceedings, and made cogent arguments with reference to case law. 

Additionally, at various points in these proceedings, Plaintiff has filed motions for the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 3, 68, 112, 132.) The Court has denied each of these 

requests, finding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 5, 69, 115, 136.) On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

renewed motion for the appointment of counsel, which is pending, along with a motion for a 

change of venue to the Northern District of California in order to be referred to a pro bono 

project for counsel. (ECF Nos. 141, 142.) 

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for the Court to hold a competency 

hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). Plaintiff asserts that he lacks the 

mental competence to represent himself in this action because of his pain management 

medications, Gabapentin and Oxcarbazepine. (ECF No. 145.) 

Given the approaching trial date, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response on or 

before April 3, 2015. The Court also directed Plaintiff to file and serve all supplemental 

evidence he wished the Court to consider no later than April 10, 2015. (ECF No. 148.)

Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a competency hearing. (ECF 

No. 163.) On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed his supplemental evidence.1 (ECF No. 168.) No 

replies have been ordered and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff filed his supplemental evidence in a document entitled “Notice of Motion Motion for Plaintiff’s 

Supplemental Information Reply for Competency Hearing Pursuant to Rule 17(c).” (ECF No. 168.) Plaintiff was 

directed to file supplemental evidence by Court order. (ECF No. 148.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to submit 

supplemental information is unnecessary and HEREBY DENIED as moot. 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 169 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 6
3

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

II. Discussion

Plaintiff requests that the Court hold a competency hearing pursuant to Rule 17(c). 

Plaintiff claims that he is currently prescribed pain medications—Gabapentin and 

Oxcarbazepine—which cause him to suffer from short-term memory loss at times, disorientation

and confusion. (ECF No. 145-1, p. 3; ECF No. 145-3, Pl’s Dec. ¶ 3.) He also claims that he has 

been in special education and has been identified as a slow learner. (ECF No. 168, p. 3.) 

Plaintiff has submitted medical and other records in an effort to support his claim. (ECF No. 

168, Exs. A, B, C.) 

Defendants counter that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because his litigation 

activities undermine his claim of mental incapacity. As an example, Defendants identify 

Plaintiff’s recent filings in preparation for trial, including Plaintiff’s pretrial statement, request 

for witnesses, and motion regarding clothing for inmate witnesses. (ECF Nos. 128, 127, 134.) 

Defendants also point out that Plaintiff represented himself favorably at the trial confirmation 

hearing on March 3, 2015. (ECF No. 137.) Defendants also note that Plaintiff has been actively 

litigating another action in this court, Johnson v. Sisodia, et al., No. 1:12-cv-02044-SAB (E.D.

Cal.). 

Defendants further counter that Plaintiff’s primary care provider has found no reason why 

Plaintiff would be unable to participate in the trial. (Declaration of M. Mays (“Mays Dec. ¶ 10.) 

Plaintiff’s primary care provider, Nurse Practitioner N. Mays, indicates that impaired cognition 

is not a known side effect of Gabapentin and it is rare for patients taking Oxcarbazepine to 

experience impaired concentration or confusion, and the degree of any such impairment is 

inversely proportional to the length of time the patient has been using the medication. (Mays 

Dec. ¶ 8) Plaintiff has been taking Oxcarbazepine since 2012. (Mays Dec. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s 

primary care provider also indicates that many of the side effects from Oxcarbazepine are more 

pronounced shortly after a dose is taken, and they tend to fade with the passage of time (60-90 

minutes). (Id.)

Additionally, Plaintiff’s primary care provider has met with him three times in recent 

months and Plaintiff has remained lucid, coherent and responsive. He also has not mentioned 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 169 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

suffering any adverse side effects from his current medications, which are in the range of 

therapeutic dosages. (Mays Dec. ¶¶ 5, 6, 7.) Plaintiff’s primary care provider does not believe 

the medications are affecting Plaintiff’s cognition or memory in any way and does not believe 

that Plaintiff would be unable to participate in any activity that required sustained attention. 

(Mays Dec. ¶¶ 7, 10.) 

A. Legal Standard

Rule 17(c) requires a court to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 

order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit, a district court must hold a competency hearing 

“when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 

1153 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (preferred 

procedure when a substantial question of mental competence exists is for the district court to 

conduct a hearing). In determining whether substantial evidence of incompetence is presented, 

the district court may consider sworn declarations from the pro se party or other inmates, sworn 

declarations or letters from treating psychiatrists or psychologists, and his medical history. 

Allen, 408 F.3d at 1152-54. 

B. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has submitted a declaration from his cellmate, Kevin E. Fields. (ECF No. 

145-2.) Mr. Fields states that he has witnessed Plaintiff being provided with Gabapentin and 

Oxcarbazepine. He has noticed that after Plaintiff takes the medications it “affects his thinking 

process substantially.” (ECF No. 145-2, Fields Dec. ¶ 3.) For example, Mr. Fields can explain 

something that is simple, but a few moments later he will have to explain it to Plaintiff again and 

again. (Id.) Mr. Fields also states that Plaintiff “becomes disoriented and forgets where he’s at 

sometimes.” (Id.). Mr. Fields reportedly has told the LVNs and PTs that Plaintiff suffers from 

these side effects. (Id.) 

The Court has considered Mr. Fields’ declaration, but it does not appear that Mr. Fields is 

qualified to assess Plaintiff’s mental competence or thinking processes. Hoang Minh Tran v. 

Gore, 2013 WL 1625418, *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (declaration from former fellow inmate 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 169 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

with no training or qualifications provided little substantial evidence to justify competency 

hearing). Further, Mr. Fields’ declaration that Plaintiff is affected after taking his medication is 

not inconsistent with the report from Plaintiff’s primary care provider. As noted, Plaintiff’s 

primary care provider has indicated that side effects from Oxcarbazepine, such as impaired 

concentration, are more pronounced shortly after a dose is taken, and they tend to fade with the 

passage of time (60-90 minutes). There is nothing to indicate that Plaintiff’s asserted symptoms 

or purported side effects are anything more than temporary. Indeed, Plaintiff’s own pro se

declaration suggests that any medication side effects may be sporadic and temporary. For 

instance, Plaintiff states that he “become[s] disoriented/confused and suffer[s] from short-term 

memory loss at times.” (ECF No. 145-3, Pl’s Dec. ¶3) (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff also has submitted medical evidence showing his current dosage of medications

as of April 4, 2015. According to the medication record, Plaintiff takes two 600mg tablets of 

Gabapentin three times a day and two 300mg tablets of Oxcarbazepine every morning. (ECF 

No. 168, Ex. A.) As indicated by Plaintiff’s primary care provider, these amounts are within the 

range of therapeutic doses and the frequency of adverse effects from Oxcarbazepine rises above 

a daily dosage of 1,200 mg. (ECF No. 163-1, Mays Dec. ¶¶ 5-6.) Such a dosage is above that 

currently prescribed for Plaintiff. More importantly, Plaintiff’s medication record does not 

provide substantial evidence of incompetence. Rather, it merely provides evidence of the 

frequency, amount and type of medication that Plaintiff is currently taking. 

Plaintiff additionally has submitted evidence from his parole records. According to this 

information, Plaintiff “has always been involved in an independent education program (special 

education) because he is a slow learner.” (ECF No. 168, Ex. B.) The parole records also 

indicate that, at some unknown point in time, Plaintiff had completed 103 of the 200 credits 

necessary to complete the high school requirement. (Id.) The Court has considered this record, 

but finds it insufficient to demonstrate substantial evidence of incompetence. The source, date 

and author of the record are not provided, nor are there documents substantiating the statements 

regarding Plaintiff’s educational program or his high school credits. That Plaintiff is purportedly 

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 169 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

a “slow learner” does not state or imply that Plaintiff is mentally incompetent or unable to 

proceed with this case. 

Both parties have submitted information regarding the potential medication side effects 

from Gabapentin and Oxcarbazepine. (ECF No. 163-2, Ex. B; ECF No. 168, Ex. C.) However, 

the clinical pharmacology of these medications does not provide substantial evidence that 

Plaintiff either suffers from any of the identified side effects to a debilitating degree or is 

mentally incompetent. 

In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff has appeared telephonically before the Court during 

a trial confirmation hearing. During this hearing, Plaintiff was coherent, able to communicate 

with the Court and counsel, state his position and arguments clearly and track the proceedings. 

The Court did not ascertain any statements indicating that Plaintiff was incompetent. 

Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiff’s 

evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to submit substantial evidence of incompetence 

to justify a competency hearing. At best, Plaintiff has provided evidence that he sometimes 

suffers from confusion, disorientation and forgetfulness after taking his medications. However, 

there is no indication that any short-term side effects from these medications cannot be 

accommodated at trial by means of recesses, breaks, shortened days or other means. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to hold a competency hearing is 

HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01264-BAM Document 169 Filed 04/15/15 Page 6 of 6