Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00616-6/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 Denying Petitioner’s Request

to Represent Himself [Doc. 553]

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 this

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 federal habeas counsel. The

motions of counsel to withdraw, and Stankewitz’s motion for new counsel, were

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 554 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 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

OProSEM arsdenStank 2

granted on December 4, 2006, and the case was referred to the Selection Board for

the Eastern District of California for recommendation of new counsel to represent

Stankewitz.

Over the next year, periodic ex parte reports about the status of the search

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

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

well as with Stankewitz himself. The Selection Board was unable to identify any

private counsel suitable for appointment in this case. The Capital Habeas Unit of

the Eastern District Federal Defender’s Office (“CHU”) was available to accept

appointment, and although it was believed that Stankewitz would object, both the

Selection Board and the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California

believed the CHU to be the best candidate under the circumstances to represent

Stankewitz.

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. Stankewitz’s request to represent

himself during federal habeas proceedings challenging his death sentence was

denied and the CHU was appointed to represent Stankewitz on December 18,

2007.

Stankewitz submitted a letter, filed March 11, 2008, seeking to represent

himself in his remaining federal proceedings. Although previous pro se filings by

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 554 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 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

OProSEM arsdenStank 3

Stankewitz have been filed under seal because they contained disclosures about

confidential communications with counsel, this submission was filed publicly at

Stankewitz’s request. Stankewitz asserts the appointment of the CHU to represent

him is unacceptable. Stankewitz does not give any specific reason why he objects

to representation by the CHU, other than an assumption that new counsel will “not

do their job right” and an assertion that new counsel “only does Mental Defense.”

Stankewitz asserts that in 31 years, not one prisoner on death row in California has

received a new trial based on a mental defense.

Stankewitz cites to federal cases, which state that litigants have a statutory

right to choose to act as their own counsel, as authority that he must be allowed to

represent himself. See Case No. CVF 02-6583 AWI SMS, Aug. 1, 2007, order at

pp. 1-3; and C.E. POPE Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.

1987). However, the right to self-representation does not extend to any

proceeding after a criminal conviction. Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S.

152, 163-164 (2000), cited in People v. Blair, 36 Cal. 4th 686, 737 (2005). A

post-conviction court may exercise broad discretion when considering what

representation to allow on appeal, and in light of the best interests of both the

prisoner and the government may require an indigent inmate to accept against his

will an attorney for representation without violating the federal Constitution. See

Martinez, 528 U.S. at 163. This Court, exercising its discretion, previously

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

Nothing in Stankewitz’s current request changes that determination.

The Warden’s motion to expand the record with the defense counsel’s trial

file from Stankewitz’s first trial is currently pending before this Court. After a

determination is made about the pending motion, the issues presented by the Ninth

Circuit’s remand will be considered. Proceedings such as these require the

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 554 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 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

OProSEM arsdenStank 4

assistance of an experienced capital lawyer. Stankewitz’s request to represent

himself in his federal proceedings is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2008 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

United States District Judge

Case 1:91-cv-00616-AWI Document 554 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 4