Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06588/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06588-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ALLEN TRAVALINI, ) 

 )

 )

 Petitioner, ) 

 v. )

)

 )

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, )

 )

 ) 

Respondent. )

 )

 ___________________________________ )

1:04-cv-06588 OWW TAG HC

ORDER VACATING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 6)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER 

TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 9)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ALTERNATIVE RELIEF (Doc. 10)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed his petition on November 22, 2004, with the Clerk of

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. (Doc. 1) 

On February 23, 2005, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to file an amended

petition within thirty days naming the proper respondent and clarifying the extent to which state

court remedies had been exhausted. (Doc. 5). Petitioner did not comply with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, on May 6, 2005, the Court issued a report and recommendation recommending the

petition be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 6). 

On May 19, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation, in which Petitioner indicated that, although he had received the original February

23, 2005 order to amend, he misunderstood the order and did not realize that the Court had imposed

a time limit within which Petitioner was to file an amended petition. (Doc. 8, p. 2). Petitioner also

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 12 Filed 06/17/05 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

alleges difficulty in accessing the hospital law library and difficulty arranging time to communicate

with a patient who assists Petitioner in this proceeding. (Doc. 8, p 3). 

On May 19, 2005, Petitioner also filed a motion to appoint counsel, in which Petitioner

alleges, under penalty of perjury, that he is presently incarcerated in the California State Hospital and

is suffering from “grave mental disorder” that “does severely limit my understanding, and

articulative abilities....” (Doc. 9, p 3). On the same date, Petitioner filed a motion for alternative

relief in which Petitioner requests leave to “seek redress through the lower level courts” in the event

that the Court does not grant the motions referred to above. (Doc. 10). Along with the objections,

motion for appointment of counsel, and motion for alternative relief, Petitioner also filed an

amended petition. (Doc. 7). 

DISCUSSION

A. Report and Recommendation of May 6, 2005.

The Report and Recommendation of May 6, 2005, recommended dismissal of the instant

petition because Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s order of February 23, 2005, directing

Petitioner to file an amended petition. Because Petitioner has now complied with that order by filing

an amended petition and also because Petitioner has adequately explained the difficulties he

experienced in understanding what the Court’s order required, the Court finds that there exists

GOOD CAUSE to vacate the Report and Recommendation of May 6, 2005. (Doc. 6).

 B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958);

Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18

U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of

justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

In the present case, Petitioner has requested counsel because of his lack of training in the law

and because he suffers from a “grave mental disorder.” (Doc. 9, p 3). Additionally, the original

petition indicated that Petitioner was found not guilty by reason of insanity as to two charges at his

second trial. (Doc. 1, Attachment). Petitioner was found sane as to three other counts and sentenced

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 12 Filed 06/17/05 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

to a term of 75 to life. (Id.). However, on September 12, 2001, Petitioner was committed to the

State Hospital at Atascadero, California, where he was to remain until restoration of his sanity,

whereupon he would be returned to the Department of Corrections to commence his prison sentence. 

(Id.). The amended petition indicates that Petitioner is still confined to the State Hospital. (Doc. 7,

p. 2). 

Where a substantial question exists regarding the mental competence of a party proceeding

pro se, the preferred procedure is to conduct a hearing to determine competence, so that a guardian

ad litem can be appointed, or other appropriate orders can be made, if necessary to protect such

party’s interests. See, Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P.

17(c). In this case, Petitioner has not provided any formal medical diagnoses of his mental

incompetence. On the other hand, Petitioner is incarcerated in the State Hospital following a verdict

of not guilty by reason of insanity. The fact that Petitioner is still undergoing treatment for his

mental condition and has not been released to begin serving his prison term, is at least inferential

evidence that Petitioner suffers at least some mental impairment. 

The question of appointing counsel for a habeas petitioner is distinct from the issue of

competence to proceed pro se. However, because Petitioner has raised the issue of competence in

his motion for appointment of counsel, the two issues are legally intertwined in this instance. The

Court cannot make a determination about the appointment of counsel until it has satisfied itself as to

Petitioner’s competence. However, the Court presently has insufficient evidence regarding

Petitioner’s current mental condition to make an informed decision about Petitioner’s competence to

proceed.

Therefore, the Court will order Petitioner to supplement his motion for appointment of

counsel, by providing the Court with additional information regarding Petitioner’s current mental

condition. This information includes, but is not limited to, any medical diagnoses of Petitioner’s

current mental condition, his current course of medical treatment (including any medications

Petitioner is receiving), and any other information Petitioner feels would be helpful to the Court in

deciding whether Petitioner is presently competent to proceed without either the appointment of

counsel or the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Once the Court has reviewed the supplemental

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 12 Filed 06/17/05 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

information, it will determine whether to proceed with a competency hearing, appoint an attorney, or

obtain additional information.

C. Motion for Alternative Relief.

Because the Court is vacating the Report and Recommendation of May 6, 2005, and because

the Court is granting leave for Petitioner to provide further information regarding his mental

condition as it relates to his competence to proceed as well as to his need for appointed counsel, and

because Petitioner’s motion for alternative relief was predicated on the denial of said relief, the

motion for alternative relief is DENIED as moot.

ORDER

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE appearing therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court VACATES the Report and Recommendation of May 6, 2005 (Doc. 6);

2. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a “Supplement to Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. In the Supplement to Motion for

Appointment of Counsel, Petitioner must provide additional admissible information regarding his

present mental condition to proceed in this case, including, but not limited to, declarations of any

medical diagnoses of Petitioner’s current mental condition, any medical course of treatment

Petitioner is currently undergoing, including all medications Petitioner is currently receiving, and any

other information that Petitioner feels would be helpful to the Court in determining whether

appointment of either counsel or a guardian ad litem is necessary; 

3. The Court withholds ruling on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 9),

pending receipt of further information from Petitioner regarding his present mental condition; and,

4. Petitioner’s motion for alternative relief (Doc. 10), is DENIED as moot. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation 

that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06588-OWW -JMD Document 12 Filed 06/17/05 Page 4 of 4