Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-28/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

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 Pursuant to its order of March 16, 2006, the court 1

permitted respondent five court days to respond to petitioner’s

application.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GERALD F. STANLEY,

NO. CIV. S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEVEN ORNOSKI, Acting Warden

of the California State Prison

at San Quentin,

Respondent.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on petitioner Gerald F.

Stanley’s (“petitioner”) ex parte application to amend this 1

court’s memorandum and order of March 1, 2006 to include

certification for permissive interlocutory appeal the issue of

petitioner’s entitlement to a competency hearing. 

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 674 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 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

Section 1292(b) provides, in pertinent part: “When a 2

district judge, in making in a civil action an order not

otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion

that such order involves a controlling question of law as to

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and

that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance

the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in

writing in such order.”

2

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

2

In its March 1 order, the court adopted in full the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, filed 

December 21, 2005, denying petitioner’s request for a competency

hearing. The magistrate judge found petitioner’s request another

“manipulation” of these habeas proceedings and “counterproductive” to resolution of this ten year old case on the

merits. (F&R at 2:14.) In so holding, the magistrate judge

found that to be entitled to a competency hearing, petitioner was

required to make a prima facie showing of incompetency (defined

as “an ability to comprehend the nature of the proceedings and an

ability to rationally consult with counsel” [F&R at 8:2-3]). 

Ultimately, the magistrate judge concluded petitioner failed to

make this showing as it (1) was undisputed that petitioner was

able to comprehend the nature of the proceedings and (2)

petitioner had “not lost the ability to communicate [with his

counsel] for a desired purpose” (F&R at 8:23-24). Rather, the

magistrate judge found, here, petitioner appears capable of

communicating with his counsel when and for whatever purposes he

deems warranted. For these reasons, this court concluded that it

“cannot find that petitioner is unable to communicate rationally

with his counsel. More likely, . . ., he is simply presently

refusing to do so.” (March 1 Order at 5:13-16.)

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 674 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 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

3

These findings do not merit certifying for interlocutory

appeal petitioner’s request for a competency hearing. While the

matter may raise a novel or controlling question of law, in that

there is no Ninth Circuit authority establishing what showing a

petitioner must make to warrant a competency determination, under

the facts of this case, there can be no substantial ground for

difference of opinion on the issue. In the context of this

habeas proceeding involving this petitioner, something more than

a “bona fide doubt” as to competency must be required to halt

these proceedings yet again. The numerous derailments of this

case caused by petitioner over the past ten years do not support

any further delay of this matter. In that regard, certification

of the issue would not materially advance this litigation, which

is finally set for an evidentiary hearing on certain of

petitioner’s habeas claims on April 17, 2006. As this court

found in its March 1 order:

This case should not be delayed any further by

petitioner’s ‘probable manipulative actions;’

it should be decided on the merits.

Accordingly, the court DENIES petitioner’s ex parte application

for certification of interlocutory appeal (Docket #662).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 674 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3