Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04727/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04727-38/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN CORNELIUS STANLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT AYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 07-cv-04727-EMC 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE 

OF PETITIONER’S ACTIVITIES IN 

THE 5% NATION OF GODS AND 

EARTH AT SAN QUENTIN PRISON

Docket No. 316

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 27, 2019, Petitioner Darren Cornelius Stanley, a condemned prisoner at 

California’s San Quentin State Prison, filed a Motion to Preserve Evidence of his Activities in the 

5% Nation of Gods and Earth at San Quentin Prison. Docket No. 316. Specifically, Petitioner 

seeks an order requiring that administrators at San Quentin permit a hired videographer to enter 

San Quentin and record Petitioner’s participation in three inmate practice group sessions involving 

Petitioner’s ostensible religious belief system. Respondent opposes the motion. See Docket No. 

321. 

For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

In 1991, a jury convicted Petitioner on one count of first-degree murder, one count of 

attempted murder, and several counts of robbery. See People v. Stanley, 39 Cal. 4th 913, 919 

(2006). The jury also found true the special circumstances that Petitioner committed murder 

during a robbery and that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the murder and other 

Case 3:07-cv-04727-EMC Document 327 Filed 03/26/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

crimes. Id. Petitioner was sentenced to death and his conviction and death sentence were affirmed 

on appeal. Id. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court 

on April 24, 2002, which was summarily denied on July 8, 2009. See Docket No. 252 at ¶ 12. 

While his state habeas corpus petition was pending, Petitioner initiated federal habeas corpus 

proceedings by filing a motion to appoint counsel in this Court on September 13, 2007. After the 

conclusion of state habeas proceedings, Petitioner filed a protective federal habeas petition on July 

8, 2010. See Docket No. 5. 

Relevant to the instant motion, Petitioner filed his finalized federal habeas petition on 

October 12, 2016. See Docket No. 252. Thereafter, on June 1, 2018, the Court entered an Order 

(Docket No. 295) staying this matter pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005), so 

that Petitioner may return to state court to exhaust certain unexhausted claims presented in the 

finalized petition. Petitioner’s state court exhaustion petition remains pending before the Alameda 

County Superior Court. See Docket No. 325. Petitioner’s motion seeks to “preserve” evidence in 

support of his claim that he is permanently incompetent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. 

Wainright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). This claim is alleged in Claim Nineteen of Petitioner’s finalized 

federal habeas petition. See Docket No. 252 at ¶¶ 1099-1122. Because the claim is unexhausted, 

Petitioner has presented it in his state court petition for writ of habeas corpus that is presently 

pending before the Superior Court of Alameda County. See Docket No. 308-2 at 302-311. 

III. ANALYSIS

Petitioner seeks an order of the Court requiring administrators at San Quentin to permit his 

hired videographer to enter San Quentin and record three separate ninety-minute sessions wherein 

Petitioner is acting as an “inmate facilitator” for 5% Nation of Gods and Earth (“5% NGE”) 

inmate practice groups. Docket No. 316 at 13. Based on the reports of a prison chaplain who 

observed prior 5% NGE inmate practice sessions, Petitioner describes such sessions as “chaotic, 

contentious, and ‘crazy,’” in that they were characterized by other inmates finding amusement in 

arguing with Petitioner about his beliefs. Id. at 5. He asserts that video recordings of additional 

sessions is essential to proof of his Ford claim because it will “conclusively dispel” Respondent’s 

competency expert’s assertion that Petitioner’s beliefs about death and the afterlife are “‘syntonic 

Case 3:07-cv-04727-EMC Document 327 Filed 03/26/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

with mainstream religious beliefs[,]’” and, therefore, are not inconsistent with Respondent’s 

contention that Petitioner is not permanently incompetent to be executed. Id. at 5-6; Docket No. 

322 at 8 (“We seek to preserve evidence of that which [the chaplain] described in order to show 

that the expressions of Petitioner’s grandiose delusional thinking are not ‘religious beliefs’ at 

all.”). He maintains that, as with the Court’s prior order of evidence preservation in this case,1the 

All Writs Act provides the requisite authority for the Court to preserve the evidence at issue and 

that, for the same reasons previously articulated by the Court, the Court should again order 

preservation. Id. at 9-11.

To be sure, as the Court previously recognized, in limited circumstances, the All Writs 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, empowers this Court to act to preserve evidence where necessary to 

“facilitate the ultimate adjudication of a petition before this Court[.]” Docket No. 305 at 2. 

However, Petitioner’s current evidence preservation request differs from his previous request. 

Unlike the previous request, which sought only preservation of tangible items of evidence in 

existence that Petitioner had shown were in danger of being destroyed and which could not be 

replaced, here Petitioner seeks an order permitting him to create, rather than preserve, evidence. 

Petitioner cites no authority for ordering such affirmative conduct. Petitioner’s citation to In re 

Thomas, 155 F.R.D. 124 (D. Md. 1994)) is inapposite. In that case, the federal court ordered state 

prison officials to videotape one inmate’s execution in order to preserve evidence for another 

inmate’s anticipated federal court suit challenging Maryland’s execution procedures. 155 F.R.D. 

at 127-28. However the federal court only intervened to ensure that evidence of the execution 

would be preserved for use in the later federal case because, due to limitations on access to the 

1 On September 17, 2018, after the Court stayed this matter pursuant to Rhines, the Court entered 

an Order (Docket No. 305) granting Petitioner’s prior, unrelated motion for preservation of 

evidence. The prior motion sought an order “stating that the Alameda County District Attorney’s 

Office shall not destroy voir dire notes and records in four capital cases tried by Ted Landswick, 

the prosecutor in Petitioner’s case.” Docket No. 305 at 1. Although the Court was cognizant of 

authority prohibiting an award of discovery in support of a mixed petition, the Court determined

that, “[g]iven the limited nature of the request at issue,” the All Writs Act empowered the court to 

act to preserve the subject evidence. Id. at 2. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that 

Petitioner had shown that “relevant portions of the voir dire notes in his own case have previously 

been omitted or destroyed” despite a retention policy, and, furthermore, the notes were 

“irreplaceable” because Mr. Landswick is deceased and “cannot be questioned about the contents 

of his voir dire notes.” Id. at 4.

Case 3:07-cv-04727-EMC Document 327 Filed 03/26/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

execution process, such evidence was mostly inaccessible to the petitioner in Thomas. See 155 

F.R.D. at 126-27. Here, Petitioner seeks to create an event entirely accessible to Petitioner and 

have it recorded. 

Even if the request were construed as a mere request to preserve (as opposed to create) 

evidence, it would not be granted. The Court previously explained that, when considering a 

request to preserve evidence, a court weighs the following factors:

1) the level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and 

maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the 

absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence; 2) any 

irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation 

of the evidence absent an order directing preservation; and 3) the 

capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence 

sought to be preserved. 

Docket No. 305 at 3 (quoting Echostar Satellite LLC v. Freetech, Inc., No. C 07-06124 JW, 2009 

WL 8399038, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009)). Application of this balancing test compels denial 

of the request in this instance. The character of the evidence Petitioner now seeks to preserve—

information about his beliefs and understanding of death and the afterlife, or his delusions about 

the same, as revealed within the admittedly unique context of his interactions with other inmates—

does not trigger substantial concern about “the continuing existence and maintenance of the 

integrity of the evidence.” This is so because the evidence germane to the Court’s inquiry, 

Petitioner’s self-expression, remains within Petitioner’s dominion. Although Petitioner cannot 

compel a particular forum in which to articulate his beliefs, or illustrate that his beliefs are mere 

delusions, there is no indication before the Court that Petitioner is unable to meaningfully 

articulate his beliefs, or illustrate his delusions, outside the context of inmate practice group 

sessions. Petitioner has submitted to interviews and examinations with experts in which he has 

explained his beliefs and, presumably, will remain able to do so. While Petitioner’s contentious 

interactions with other inmates conceivably could provide helpful information in resolving his 

Ford claim, nothing before the Court suggests that video recordings of such interactions are 

indispensable in resolving the claim, especially considering the fact that Petitioner would be aware 

of the fact that his actions are being recorded. The value of the evidence Petitioner seeks to 

“preserve” is dubious; unlike critical notes of Mr. Landswick, there may be questions about the

Case 3:07-cv-04727-EMC Document 327 Filed 03/26/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

inherent integrity of the evidence Petitioner seeks to create.

For the same reasons, the Court cannot conclude at this time that Petitioner has shown that 

he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preservation order. Petitioner has not shown 

that he will be prejudiced by any delay in creating video recordings of his inmate practice group 

sessions until such time as the state court grants leave to Petitioner to conduct such discovery or 

this Court considers whether to do so when this matter is no longer stayed. Petitioner’s argument 

otherwise is unpersuasive. He contends that, because his incompetency is apparently 

“worsening,” “[t]his may well be our last chance to preserve evidence of him ‘in situ’ – addressing 

those very topics and beliefs upon which Respondent challenges his Ford competency.” Docket 

No. 316 at 10-11. However, if, as Petitioner appears to imply, he will be even more obviously 

incompetent whenever this matter returns to this Court, how is Petitioner irreparably harmed by a 

court order declining to “preserve” evidence at a time of supposedly superior competence? 

Petitioner offers no satisfactory answer to this question. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to 

show that he will be irreparably harmed absent an order to preserve evidence at this time.

Unlike with Mr. Landswick’s notes, the Court is not here confronted with the threat of loss 

or destruction of tangible, material, and irreplaceable evidence in circumstances beyond 

Petitioner’s control. Nothing indicates that the evidence Petitioner seeks to obtain will be less 

probative of his claim if he is required to renew his request when this matter returns to federal 

court.2

Finally, Petitioner’s motion is essentially a motion for discovery, which this Court has 

already recognized is not permissible in support of an unexhausted petition, absent some 

2 For this reason, the Court’s prior, confidential order awarding federal funds for Petitioner to hire

a videographer is consistent with this Order. In granting such funds, the Court determined that the 

services of a videographer were “reasonably necessary for the representation of the [petitioner,]” 

18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), because, indeed, Petitioner’s counsel has no other means of obtaining a video 

recording of Petitioner’s practice group activities within the prison. However, the Court did not, 

and could not, in that order conclude that Petitioner is entitled to “preserve” evidence or conduct 

discovery, or that prison administrators must permit Petitioner’s videographer to access secure 

areas of the prison. These are matters that must be resolved through adversarial motion practice

rather than ex parte statutory funding requests. It follows that, after this Court has lifted its stay, if 

the Court determines that Petitioner is entitled to conduct the discovery described in his motion, 

the services of the videographer will remain “reasonably necessary” to representation of 

Petitioner.

Case 3:07-cv-04727-EMC Document 327 Filed 03/26/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

extraordinary circumstance. No such circumstance has been demonstrated here.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion to Preserve Evidence of his Activities in the 

5% Nation of Gods and Earth at San Quentin Prison (Docket No. 316) is DENIED.

This order disposes of Docket No. 316.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04727-EMC Document 327 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 6