Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-11/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

 The Warden’s moving papers additionally requested leave to take the depositions of Holt’s 1

designated experts following disclosure of their reports required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2). At the hearing, Mr. McCoy clarified that the Warden does not seek to depose Holt’s experts

and that he is moving only to take the deposition of Mr. Soria and to conduct a mental examination of

97dp06210.OReXMo4EvidDev.Hlt.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., as Warden of )

San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:97-CV-06210-AWI

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: CROSS MOTIONS FOR

EVIDENTIARY DEVELOPMENT

DATE: June 25, 2007

TIME: 3:00 p.m.

COURTROOM TWO

This matter came on for a hearing on the parties’ respective cross motions for evidentiary

development in the above entitled Court, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, presiding. Petitioner John

Lee Holt (“Holt”) was represented by his attorneys of record, Robert M. Myers and Jennifer M. Corey.

Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr., as Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) was represented

by Deputy Attorneys General Sean M. McCoy and Peter Thompson. Holt moved to expand the record

pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (hereafter the “§ 2254 Rules”) to include the

deposition transcripts of Juror Billy Wayne Ross, Lois Armstrong, Ph.D., Aubrey Dent, M.D., and

Roderick Ponath, M.D. The Warden moved for two categories of discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the

§ 2254 Rules: (1) leave to take the deposition of Holt’s trial counsel Charles Soria and (2) renewal of

the request for leave to conduct a mental examination of Holt pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 35(a). Holt also reminded the Court that under the authority of a prior Court order, he plans 1

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 169 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 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

Holt.

97dp06210.OReXMo4EvidDev.Hlt.wpd 2

to depose the Warden’s expert, James R. Missett, M.D., Ph.D., upon Dr. Missett’s disclosure of his

expert report required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

I. Holt’s Rule 7 Motion to Expand the Record.

The Warden’s written response to Holt’s Rule 7 motion states his non-opposition to expanding

the record to include the deposition transcripts of California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) treating doctors Armstrong, Dent, and Ponath. The Warden claims the fact

that these doctors have applied various diagnoses to Holt (from schizophrenia to depressive disorder

with psychotic features) permits an inference that Holt is malingering. Holt disputes this assessment 

The Warden’s papers make no mention of Juror Billy Ross. 

The motion to expand the record to include the depositions transcripts of Billy Wayne Ross and

the three treating CDCR doctors, Armstrong, Dent, and Ponath is granted. No evidentiary

determinations will be made at this time.

II. The Warden’s Rule 6 Request to Depose Trial Counsel.

The Warden claims Mr. Soria’s testimony is necessary to determine whether he provided Holt

competent representation in light of the information and resources available to him (Mr. Soria) at the

time of trial. The timing of the Warden’s request follows the recent disclosure of substantial

documentation contained in trial counsel files in the possession of Holt’s current attorneys. The Warden

has not explored other options to evaluate Mr. Soria’s anticipated testimony, including an investigative

interview. His purpose in taking deposition is to lock in Mr. Soria’s testimony. Since Mr. Soria is listed

on Holt’s witness list, the taking his deposition will not obviate the need for him to testify. 

Holt’s primary objection to the Warden’s late request to depose Mr. Soria is the extra time and

expense that will be incurred by Holt’s litigation team in preparing for and attending the deposition.

The Court finds the Warden has established good cause for taking Mr. Soria’s deposition in light

of the recent disclosure of trial counsel files. The parties are directed to meet and confer within 30 days

from the entry of this order to discuss the scope of the Warden’s examination, the timing and duration

of the deposition, and the applicability of the prior protective order issued in this case to Mr. Soria’s

anticipated deposition testimony. The conference among counsel should be informed by ¶ 64 of the

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 169 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 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

 The Court regards Mr. Soria as a fact witness. 2

 The United States Marshal pays the cost of Holt’s copy ofthe fact witness deposition transcript. 3

97dp06210.OReXMo4EvidDev.Hlt.wpd 3

Fresno Attorney Guide (posted on the Court’s website at www.caed.uscourts.gov) regarding the

allocation of expenses for fact witness depositions. Under Rule 6(c) of the § 2254 Rules, for 2

depositions noticed by the Warden (fact or expert witness), theCourt has, and will exercise the authority

to require the State of California to pay travel expenses, subsistence expenses, and fees of Mr. Myers

to attend the deposition. The State of California also is obligated to pay Mr. Soria’s witness and travel

expenses, plus reporter’s fees, and the cost of the original transcript. In the event the parties encounter 3

any difficulty in reaching an agreement about the time, scope, and manner of Mr. Soria’s deposition, they

may contact the Court for a follow-up telephonic conference.

III. The Warden’s Renewed Request to Conduct a Mental Examination of Holt.

The Warden’s original, extensively briefed motion to subject Holt to a mental examination was

denied without prejudice by the Court on August 29, 2006 (doc. 143). In the original motion, the

purpose of the requested examination was said to explore Holt’s past mental state, at the time of the

offense (July 1989) and trial (April-May 1990), as well as his current mental state limited to

malingering. To conduct a mental examination under Rule 35, two requirements must be satisfied.

First, the subject’s current mental state must be “in controversy,” and second, “good cause” must exist

for conducting the mental examination to put the parties on equal footing and/or because there are no

alternatives for exploring the subject’s current mental state. The Court previously found that except as

to whether Holt is feigning mental illness, his current mental state was not at issue in the upcoming

evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is Holt’s past mental state that must be explored to resolve claims

regarding his competence to be tried and his mental state at the time of the offense. The Court also

expressed concern as to whether a mental examination competently could reveal a mental state that

existed 17 and 18 years in the past. The Court suggested that in light of the then-anticipated depositions

of CDCR treating doctors, Armstrong, Dent, and Ponath, the issue of Holt’s malingering (that is, his

current mental state) could be adequately explored without the necessity of Dr. Missett and his associate

psychologist William Lynch, Ph.D. conducting a mental examination. On renewal of the motion, the

Court invited the Warden to advance an argument that the “in controversy” requirement of Rule 35(a)

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 169 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 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 Dr. Missett, however, does not explain in his declaration how a mental examination would 4

reveal Holt’s past mental status.

97dp06210.OReXMo4EvidDev.Hlt.wpd 4

extends beyond a party’s current mental condition, and that the testimony of the CDCR treating doctors

is insufficient to address the current mental condition (Holt’s alleged malingering).

In the present motion, the Warden has not addressed the Court’s concerns about whether a mental

examination is appropriate under Rule 35 to explore past mental conditions or whether a mental

examination could reveal a past mental state. The Warden has, however, addressed the inadequacy of

the treating doctors’ respective assessments about Holt’s malingering. The treating doctors have given

testimony that Holt currently is profoundly mentally impaired, under (state) court order for involuntary

anti-psychotic medication, not susceptible to neurological testing due to non- responsiveness, and that

he is not malingering. These witnesses are independent witnesses working for the CDCR who have had

extensive contact with Holt in the prison setting. Their testimony is credible. The Warden’s expert, Dr.

Missett, offers declaration testimony explaining how psychological testing could be designed and

conducted to determine whether Holt is malingering. The Warden also strenuously argues that Holt has

placed his past mental state at issue. In a sur-reply, Holt objects to the declaration of Dr. Missett 4

appended to the Warden’s reply as non-responsive to any evidentiary material presented by Holt in his

opposition, and merely constituting another attempt to try to convince the Court to grant the requested

mental examination.

The Court agrees with theWarden that Holt’s past mental state is in issue in this case. Other than

malingering, Holt’s past mental state is a key issue that will be explored at the anticipated evidentiary

hearing. The present motion, however, is not about what the ultimate issues are in the case. It concerns

whether the Warden may utilize Rule 35(a) to conduct a mental examination. The Court concludes he

may not, because a mental examination under Rule 35(a) is designed to uncover a current mental state,

not a past mental state. With respect to Holt’s current mental state of alleged malingering, the Court is

satisfied that the CDCR treating doctors have adequately covered this issue in their deposition testimony.

The Warden has not demonstrated “good cause” to subject Holt to a mental examination as whether he

is malingering.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 169 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 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

97dp06210.OReXMo4EvidDev.Hlt.wpd 5

The renewed motion for a mental examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a)

is denied without prejudice. Holt’s objection to Dr. Missett’s declaration is overruled.

IV. The Outstanding Order Authorizing Holt to Depose Dr. Missett.

By order filed July 10, 2006 (doc. 138), the Court granted Holt’s request to require Dr. Missett

to provide a report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and to take his deposition once

the report was received. The fact that Dr. Missett’s report and deposition are anticipated is repeated in

the parties’ joint discovery schedule filed on August 11, 2006 (doc. 140).

At the conference counsel for the parties are directed to participate in regarding the scheduling

of Mr. Soria’s deposition, they also are directed discuss when Dr. Missett will provide his Rule 26 report

to Holt’s attorneys so that his deposition may be scheduled. As with discussions regarding the

deposition of Mr. Soria, if the parties encounter any difficulty requiring the Court’s intervention, they

may request a follow-up telephonic conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: July 2, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 169 Filed 07/02/07 Page 5 of 5