Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05819/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05819-20/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This matter is before the Court after it was remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal “for 

a determination of whether [Petitioner’s] actual innocence claim meets the standard set forth in 

McQuiggin so that he is entitled to an exception to the expiration of the AEDPA statute of 

limitations.” (Doc. 89, pp. 2-3). 

On February 19, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs explaining 

whether an evidentiary hearing is required as to whether the hospital’s action related to placement of 

the feeding tube into the victim constituted gross negligence. (Doc. 96) If a hearing was thought 

necessary, the party was to detail the evidence that would be presented and the earliest possible date 

that the hearing could occur. Id.

On March 2, 2015, Petitioner filed a brief asserting that a hearing is required. (Doc. 97) in 

particular, Petitioner claims that the surgeon who placed the feeding tube originally ordered that a 

doctor be called if the tube was dislodged. Id. at 2. He claims that when the tube was displaced, it 

was reinserted by rehabilitation hospital staff rather than by a doctor. Id. Moreover, he claims the 

TOMMY RAY WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner,

v.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:03-cv-05819-JLT

ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 99 Filed 03/06/15 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

hospital staff contravened doctor’s orders not to begin feeding the patient until the correct placement 

of the feeding tube was confirmed. Id. at3. Petitioner claims staff members continued to feed the 

patient through the tube without confirming its proper placement and that these acts resulted in the 

patient’s death. Id. Petitioner asserts that the actions constitute gross negligence and he will present 

expert testimony to detail the extent of this negligence. Id. Petitioner claims the earliest date he 

would be prepared for the evidentiary hearing is June 2015. Id. at 4.

Respondent disagrees that a hearing is necessary. (Doc. 98 at 2) While admitting the medical 

records constitute new evidence, Respondent argues that because they duplicate the coroner’s 

determination, they are insufficient to justify the hearing. However, as noted above, Petitioner argues 

the medical records detail repeated errors by the rehabilitation hospital. First, though the surgeon, who 

placed the PEG tube initially, ordered that a doctor was to be called in the event the tube was 

dislodged, this did not occur. (Doc. 93-1 at 4.) Instead, a nurse replaced the dislodged PEG tube 

bedside with a foley catheter. Id. at 10. Second, this procedure was made more difficult by the fact 

that the PEG tube had been placed only two days before and the “tract” had not yet healed. (Doc. 93-2 

at 6) Thus, there was no established pathway for insertion of the tube. Id. Third, rehabilitation 

hospital staff delivered medications to the patient and resumed feeding the patient without first 

confirming the correct placement of the tube.

1

 (Doc. 93-1 at 10.)

On the other hand, the autopsy report does not attempt to determine whether the hospital’s 

action was legal cause of the victim’s death and the evidence from the report is equivocal as to 

whether such a conclusion can be drawn. The autopsy report indicates that the injuries sustained as a 

result of the collission resulted in a head trauma that “while significant, would not seem to be severe 

enough to lead to death as a primary cause.” (Doc. 93, Ex. 2, p. 6)(Emphasis supplied). The 

pathologist, Dr. Dianne R. Vertes, did not state, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, or 

indeed to any degree of probability, that the head trauma resulting from Petitioner’s conduct would not 

have resulted in death, but instead opined only that it “would not appear” that the head injuries were so 

severe that, by themselves, they would have resulted in death. Dr. Vertes also indicated that the cause 

of the victim’s death “is attributed” to peritonitis. The pathologist makes no attempt to express an 

 

1 The court cannot make out any note indicating that feeing resumed but the coroner found “100 cc’s of white fluid 

surrounding the abdominal viscera” (Doc. 93-2 at 4) seeming to indicate that feeding resumed especially in light of the fact 

that this was the amount of nutrition he had been receiving (Doc 93-1 at 9).

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 99 Filed 03/06/15 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

expert legal opinion, nor does her choice of words in the autopsy report exclude the possibility that the 

victim’s head injuries contributed to his death. Most notably, the pathologist’s phrasing does not 

require a conclusion that peritonitis was the sole and exclusive cause of the victim’s death.

Respondent argues also2that Petitioner has not established a constitutional violation and absent 

an examination of the medical records and the presentation of expert testimony, clearly, he could not. 

However, this evidence, if presented, would show that he was convicted upon insufficient evidence 

which violates the Constitution. The Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction 

except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute a crime with which 

he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363-364 (1970). Winship continued, “[A] society that 

values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a 

crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.” Thus, it seems unlikely to be disputed that if 

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder when, as a matter of law, he was not guilty, the 

Constitution would be violated. In that factual situation, seemingly, no reasonable jury could convict.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The court sets an evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of 

the Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse in Fresno, California. At the hearing, evidence will be 

allowed on the topic of whether the actions by the rehabilitation hospital staff related to inserting the 

foley catheter into the victim’s abdomen, was gross negligence such to constitute the sole cause of 

death;

2. No later than May 11, 2015, counsel for Petitioner SHALL file a written request for 

Petitioner to be transported for the hearing, if he wishes to be present.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2Respondent seems to argue the Court could go directly to the merits of the matter and decide the petition on the current 

record. (Doc. 98 at 3 [“[T]his Court could resolve the matter (by finding counsel did adequately convey the cause of death) 

without yet another hearing.”].) However, it does not appear Respondent is withdrawing from his previous position that the 

petition was not timely nor conceding that it is. 

Case 1:03-cv-05819-JLT Document 99 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 3