Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016-15/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 Under Rohan ex rel Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2003), a

habeas petitioner must be competent to rationally communicate and assist counsel regarding

the litigation of habeas claims that could potentially benefit from his ability to communicate

rationally. 

The Court’s Order directed the staff at ASH to “consider whether Petitioner has any

present mental disease or defect, including whether he is feigning or malingering psychiatric

symptoms. These experts shall also determine whether Petitioner is capable of

communicating rationally.” (Dkt. 147 at 3.)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernest Valencia Gonzales, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-99-2016-PHX-SMM

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for a status hearing regarding compliance with

this Court’s Order directing mental health professionals at the Arizona State Hospital

(“ASH”) to assess Petitioner’s competence.1

 (Dkt. 148.) Following briefing of Petitioner’s

motion, the Court ordered Respondents to supplement the record regarding actions taken by

ASH during this assessment period. (Dkt. 153.) Thereafter Respondents filed an additional

response and submitted ASH reports. (Dkt. 154, 155, 158.) Petitioner filed a reply. (Dkt.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 159 Filed 09/04/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

156.)

Respondents’ supplemental filings included a number of reports by Dr. James Seward,

an ASH psychologist, on the status of the evaluation of Petitioner’s competence. (Dkts. 154,

155 and 158.) Dr. Seward’s initial report indicates that he and Petitioner’s treating

psychiatrist, Dr. Qureshi, have not arrived at a definitive diagnosis regarding Petitioner’s

competence. (Dkt. 154.) The report explains that as part of the assessment effort, Petitioner

has been prescribed psychiatric medications for anxiety, depression, and sleep; he has also

participated in various group activities. (Id.) The report further notes that Petitioner has

“displayed episodes of disordered thoughts.” (Id.) Drs. Seward and Qureshi have not,

however, been able to determine the etiology of this presentation – i.e., whether the episodes

are “malingered” or the product of a “genuine psychotic disorder.” (Id.) To assist them in

making such a determination, Dr. Seward has requested that the Court authorize the use of

antipsychotic medication. (Id.)

In Dr. Seward’s final report, he concluded that he was unable to provide the Court

with an opinion regarding “whether [Petitioner] has any present mental disease or defect,

including whether or not he is feigning or malingering psychiatric symptoms.” (Dkt. 158 at

4.) Regarding whether Petitioner is competent to rationally communicate with habeas

counsel, Dr. Seward opined that if Petitioner has a genuine psychotic disorder, it “would

interfere with his ability to communicate rationally in the furtherance of his defense.” (Id.)

Finally, Dr. Seward reiterates his belief that it would assist he and Dr. Qureshi to initiate a

treatment of antipsychotic medication and monitor Petitioner’s response. (Id. at 15.) 

Petitioner contends that this Court’s Order excluded the use of psychiatric treatment

during the assessment period, and he objects to further psychiatric treatment without a

competency diagnosis. (Dkt. 156.) Petitioner believes that additional psychiatric treatment

will obscure the current assessment of his competency and the baseline record of his mental

health, and that administration of antipsychotic medication is not recommended when a

diagnosis of psychosis is still in doubt. (Id.)

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 159 Filed 09/04/07 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

27

28

- 3 -

Ultimately, the Court will issue a ruling regarding Petitioner’s competence under

Rohan. At the most recent status conference, Petitioner and Respondents concluded that a

long-term assessment of Petitioner’s competence at a secure mental health facility would be

beneficial to both parties. (Dkt. 143 at 7-8.) The Court agreed and ordered the transfer to

ASH. (Dkt. 147.) However, in ordering Petitioner’s competency assessment, it was not this

Court’s intention – nor is it the Court’s role – to prescribe the methods by which the

assessment would be conducted. Accordingly, this Court will not be put in a position of

dictating to the mental health professionals at ASH the procedures or medications they may

use in finally assessing Petitioner’s competence. Rather, it is the responsibility of those

professional to complete their assessment and to provide the Court with a updated final report

regarding Petitioner’s competence. 

With respect to Petitioner’s allegation that there is no baseline record of his mental

health and that treatment at ASH may obscure such a record, Petitioner may present this

argument in the continued litigation of his competence. However, the Court notes that prior

to his transfer to ASH, Petitioner obtained his own neuropsychological evaluation, in part,

to arrive at a baseline record of his mental health. (See Dkt. 143 at 5-7.) Finally, with

respect to Petitioner’s contention that antipsychotic medication is not recommended prior to

a diagnosis of psychosis, the Court notes again that it is the responsibility of the mental

health professionals at ASH to determine the appropriate methods and procedures in order

to complete their competency assessment of Petitioner. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s motion for an immediate status

conference. (Dkt. 148.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that designated staff at the Arizona State Hospital

complete the competency assessment begun on Petitioner pursuant to the terms and

conditions established by this Court’s May 4, 2007, Order and provide the Court with an

updated final report regarding Petitioner’s competency for evaluation by the Court at the

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 159 Filed 09/04/07 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

27

28

- 4 -

October 15, 2007, status hearing. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, within ten days of the filing of this Order, that the

parties meet and confer regarding Dr. Seward’s request for additional information regarding

unredacted ADC records and an ADC Classification Operating Manual. The parties shall

determine how to provide Dr. Seward with the materials requested and complete this task

within twenty days of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the parties not to file any interim pleadings

prior to the commencement of the status hearing on October 15, 2007.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 159 Filed 09/04/07 Page 4 of 4