Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00616-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS RAY STANKEWITZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-91-616-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Appointing Counsel

On February 6, 2006, Petitioner Douglas Ray Stankewitz (“Stankewitz”), a

state prisoner facing capital punishment, filed a request for dismissal of his current

counsel and appointment of new counsel for his proceedings in the Eastern

District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following an inquiry by the

Court, Lynne S. Coffin, Esq. was appointed as independent advisory counsel to

consult with Stankewitz and federal habeas counsel regarding the existence of any

conflict. Subsequently, Stankewitz’s federal habeas counsel filed motions to

withdraw as counsel of record. Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the Warden”)

opposed the motions to withdraw. Independent counsel Coffin reported a conflict

existed between Stankewitz and his appointed counsel. The motions of counsel to

withdraw, and Stankewitz’s motion for new counsel, were granted on December 4,

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 547 Filed 12/18/07 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

OAppCnsl2Stank 2

2006, and the case was referred to the Selection Board for the Eastern District of

California for recommendation of new counsel to represent Stankewitz.

During the past year, periodic ex parte reports about the status of the search

by the Selection Board for new counsel have been made to the Court. Discussions

were held with independent counsel Coffin, several of Stankewitz’s prior

attorneys, as well as with Stankewitz himself. Taking into account Stankewitz’s

desire to pursue guilt phase claims which have already been rejected, his

preference to proceed in pro per unless new counsel agrees to assert those guilt

phase claims, and his general reservations about lawyers, the Selection Board has

been unable to identify any private counsel suitable for appointment in this case,

and foresee that additional efforts to locate private counsel also would be futile. 

The Federal Defender Capital Habeas Unit (“CHU”) is available to accept

appointment in Stankewitz’s case, and although it is believed that Stankewitz will

object, both the Selection Board and the Federal Defender believe the CHU is the

best candidate under the circumstances.

Stankewitz submitted a pro se request in February, 2007, which was filed

under seal because it contained confidential information, seeking to represent

himself until new counsel was appointed. That request was denied as it was

determined self-representation would not be in Stankewitz’s best interest and

because the request was only intended to be temporary, until new counsel was

appointed. Stankewitz submitted a letter to the Court dated October 21, 2007,

stating that as of that date no one was representing him, and requesting that the

hearing ordered by the Ninth Circuit be held. The Court is aware Stankewitz has

been without representation since prior counsel was allowed to withdraw one year

ago, and is further aware of Stankewitz’s desire to pursue claims relating to his

conviction. Those claims, however, have already been rejected by this Court, and

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 547 Filed 12/18/07 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

OAppCnsl2Stank 3

affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit.

The right to self-representation does not extend to post-conviction

proceedings, but remains within the discretion of the Court. Martinez v. Court of

Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000). The Court, exercising its

discretion, continues to find that self-representation would not be in Stankewitz’s

best interest. Self-representation is almost always unwise, and considering the

complexity of capital habeas litigation may be detrimental. Id., 528 U.S. at 161. 

“Congress’ provision of a right to counsel [for federal petitioners challenging a

state death sentence] reflects a determination that quality legal representation is

necessary in capital habeas corpus proceedings in light of the seriousness of the

possible penalty and . . . the unique and complex nature of the litigation.”

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 854 (1994) (internal quotes and citations

omitted). This is especially true for the stage of proceedings Stankewitz faces,

with a pending evidentiary hearing. Stankewitz’s request to represent himself

during federal habeas proceedings challenging his death sentence is DENIED.

The Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California,

Capital Habeas Unit, is appointed to represent Stankewitz for all purposes in these

proceedings. Counsel for Stankewitz shall set a telephonic case management

conference within thirty days of the date of this order to discuss a schedule for the

litigation in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 547 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 3