Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02818/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02818-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL THOMPSON,

 Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-cv-2818-NLS

**REDACTED** ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(Dkt. No. 5)

vs.

TIM VIRGA, and KAMALA HARRIS,

 Respondents.

On December 2, 2011, Petitioner, Carl Thompson, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

challenging his convictions for attempted murder of a peace officer, assault with a deadly weapon, and

great bodily injury. (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner claims he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel

during a pretrial mental competency hearing. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.)

On December 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a “Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury in Support

of Motion for Appointment of Counsel[.]” (Dkt. No. 5.) He asserts that he is a paranoid

schizophrenic and “has trouble concentrating[,] communicating, remembering[,] and understanding[,]

and as such is unable to rise to the level necessary to participate in this courts [sic] various

requirement[s].” Id. at 1. By Order of this Court dated January 12, 2012, this Declaration was deemed

a motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) In that Order, Petitioner was instructed to file

additional information to establish that he currently suffers from a mental illness, and that the mental

illness prevented him from being able to understand and respond to Court orders. Id. at 3-4. The

- 1 - 11cv2818-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02818-NLS Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 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

Order also directed Respondents to conduct an independent investigation into Petitioner’s competence,

and to file a response containing the results of that investigation as well as legal argument. Id. at 4. 

This information was needed to assist the Court in determining whether a competency hearing was

appropriate. Id. at 3.

On February 3, 2012, Respondents filed a response, which included Petitioner’s medical

records filed under seal. (Dkt. Nos. 11-13, 15.) Petitioner filed his information on March 16, 2012. 

(Dkt. No. 18.) 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a district court must hold a competency

hearing “when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150,

1153 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court in Allen did not specifically delineate what constituted “substantial

evidence,” however, it did offer some guidance. In Allen, the petitioner did not comply with a court

order, and he submitted his own declaration and the declaration of another inmate explaining that he

was mentally ill and did not understand the court’s instructions. Id. at 1152. In addition, the petitioner

included a letter from the prison psychiatrist setting forth his diagnosis of chronic undifferentiated

schizophrenia and stating that petitioner was taking two psychotropic medications. Id. Those

submissions established that “he suffer[ed] from a mental illness, the mental illness prevent[ed] him

from being able to understand and respond to the court’s order, and he was still suffering from the

illness during the relevant time period,” and the Ninth Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence

for the district court to have appointed counsel for the petitioner to represent him at a competency

hearing. Id. 

In the Order of January 12, 2012, this Court sought to obtain more information in order to

properly evaluate whether Petitioner has submitted “substantial evidence” of his incompetence. 

Both Petitioner and Respondents have responded to the Court’s Order, and this question may now

properly be addressed.

II. ANALYSIS

Petitioner attached a number of exhibits to his Petition documenting his mental health

history. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) Petitioner’s records reflect that between 1997 through to January 1999

- 2 - 11cv2818-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02818-NLS Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 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

two separate staff psychiatrists at Vacaville prison diagnosed him with “Psychotic disorder, N.O.S.

[not otherwise specified]” in declarations they submitted in support of the prison’s petition for

involuntary medication of Petitioner. Id. at 9 and 15.1

 The exhibits also include two

administrative judge orders, one in 1997 and one in 1998, granting the prison’s petitions. Id. at 3

and 8. Petitioner also included various assessments contained in his County Mental Health

Services file that describe Petitioner’s condition as “Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise

Specified,” “Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type,” or “Paranoid Schizophrenia.” Id. at 22, 25, 27 and

28. 

In further support of his motion for the appointment of counsel, Petitioner submitted

documentation demonstrating that the State of California petitioned for, and received, permission

to involuntarily medicate Petitioner in 2007. (Dkt. No. 18 at 7 and 14.) In 2008, that request was

renewed. Id. at 32-34. These petitions were made on the grounds that Petitioner was “gravely

disabled.” Id. at 8 and 34. Petitioner also submitted mental health evaluations, progress notes, and

other medical notes from the years 2004-2007. Id. at 15-31. These records indicate that, during

that time, Petitioner had poor hygiene, a foul body odor, he refused eye contact, his affect was

constricted/blunted, and his insight and judgment were impaired. Id. at 18. He did not properly

care for his colostomy bag, and would empty it at inappropriate times and places. Id. at 11. 

Petitioner demonstrated an “inability to function” which placed him at a “significant risk of serious

medical complications.” Id. at 16. However, the most recent documentation submitted by

Petitioner is from 2008; he did not submit any evidence regarding his current mental condition.2

He also did not submit any declarations from other inmates or medical personnel attesting to his

alleged incompetence.

In response, Respondents lodged Petitioner’s prison medical records with the Court, and

argues that Petitioner’s current mental state does not warrant the appointment of counsel. (Dkt.

No. 11 at 3.) After an independent review of the medical records, this Court agrees.

1

Citations to page numbers in Petitioner’s submissions reference those assigned by the ECF

system.

2

Petitioner indicated that he was having difficulty obtaining his medical records. (Dkt. No. 18

at 1.) These records were lodged with the Court by Respondents on February 3, 2012. (Dkt. No. 13.)

- 3 - 11cv2818-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02818-NLS Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 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

The Allen decision mandates that this Court must consider Petitioner’s mental health at

“the relevant time period,” which is during this ongoing habeas proceeding. 408 F.3d at 1152. 

The most recent entry in Petitioner’s medical records states that he was “cooperative and attentive

to social conventions,” his speech was “loud and clear,” he “did not display any evidence of

physical or emotional distress,” and he “did not display any suicidal, homicidal, hallucinatory,

delusional or paranoid tendencies[.]” (Respondents’ Supplemental Lodgment “RSL” at 1.) On

January 6, 2012, he was “alert and oriented,” his thought was “linear and logical,” and hygiene and

grooming were “within normal limits.” Id. at 3. A progress note dated August 25, 2011, indicates

that Petitioner was participating in “spiritual activities,” and was having “no problems.” Id. at 5. 

His hygiene and speech were good; he was “focused and linear and logical” and he was compliant

with his medications. Id. Petitioner received similar assessments in March and in June of 2011. 

Id. at 199 and 201. The Order mandating involuntary medication was due to expire in 2009, and

Petitioner’s medical team did not seek renewal because he “demonstrated med compliance and

insight into his mental illness.” Id. at 177.

Perhaps even more meaningful than Petitioner’s medical records is the fact that, to date,

this Court has observed that Petitioner is effectively litigating this case without counsel. There is

no evidence that anyone else has prepared his submissions for him, and, to date, they have been

relatively clear and organized. Petitioner has complied with court orders (unlike the petitioner in

Allen) and has been an active participant in this proceeding. This Court has no doubt that

schizophrenia can be a debilitating mental illness; however, there is no indication that Petitioner’s

current mental state prevents him from understanding or responding to court orders, or from

adequately representing himself.

///

///

///

///

///

///

- 4 - 11cv2818-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02818-NLS Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 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

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel,

without prejudice, and ORDERS Petitioner to file a response to Respondents’ motion to dismiss

(Dkt. No. 8) on or before May 2, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2012

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

- 5 - 11cv2818-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02818-NLS Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 Page 5 of 5