Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-01665/USCOURTS-caed-2_94-cv-01665-25/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO ESPINOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 2:94-cv-1665 KJM DB

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. In an order filed September 21, 2023, this court 

considered the appropriate procedures for resolving petitioner’s counsel’s motion to determine 

incompetency and appoint a guardian ad litem. (ECF No. 320.) Citing Chief Judge Mueller’s 

opinion in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Yeager, No. 2:13-CV-0007-KJM-DAD, 2015 WL 4751185, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015), this court found that “notice and a hearing are the minimum [due 

process] required” in determining a party’s competency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

17. 

This court determined that the first step for considering counsel’s motion is a hearing to 

permit the undersigned to question petitioner about his understanding of the motion. As made 

clear in the September 21 order, the purpose of this hearing is only to provide petitioner with 

notice and to ask whether he consents to the appointment of a guardian ad litem. This hearing is 

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 325 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 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

2

not intended to provide the court with information to resolve the question of petitioner’s 

competency. In the order, this court also discussed the steps that may follow the notice hearing: 

holding a hearing to take evidence; appointing an expert to examine petitioner; and appointing 

counsel for petitioner for purposes of counsel’s motion. 

Following issuance of the September 21 order, Ms. Gardner, petitioner’s counsel, filed 

two documents. The first, entitled “Petitioner’s Third Supplemental Authorities,” sets out 

standards for determining competency, argues, again, that petitioner is not competent, and seeks

appointment of an expert to examine petitioner before the court holds any sort of hearing. 

Counsel has not moved for reconsideration of the September 21 order. Therefore it remains in 

effect. And, in any event, this court does not find an expert evaluation necessary before the court 

simply provides petitioner notice of his counsel’s motion. With respect to Ms. Gardner’s 

arguments regarding the merits of her motion, they are unnecessary and premature. Ms. Gardner 

has already submitted briefing in support of her motion. If the court finds further briefing would 

be helpful, it will order it. 

Ms. Gardner’s second filing proposes questions for this court to ask petitioner during the 

notice hearing. This court will consider and use those suggested questions as appropriate. 

Court staff continues to finalize a date for the notice hearing. The court will issue an 

order formally setting the hearing shortly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2023

DB:9/DB prisoner inbox/capital/Espinoza.comp notice hrg(2)

Case 2:94-cv-01665-KJM-SCR Document 325 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2