Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016-8/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

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

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ motion for reconsideration of this Court’s

Order granting an evidentiary hearing to determine Petitioner’s competency to assist statutory

habeas counsel pursuant to Rohan ex rel Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003).

Respondents contend that Petitioner has not established a colorable Rohan claim and,

therefore, is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, Respondents continue their

previous argument that Petitioner has not established that it is necessary for him to

communicate with his counsel in order for counsel to file a merits brief on his remaining

claims. (See Dkt. 104 at 3-5.) The Court did not clearly err in its implicit rejection of this

argument. (See Dkt. 126.) Petitioner has established that some of his remaining claims could

potentially benefit from his assistance to counsel. (See Dkt. 108 at 4-8.)

DISCUSSION

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and appropriate only if the court is

presented with newly discovered evidence, if there is an intervening change in controlling

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 128 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

law, or if the court committed clear error. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam); see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Respondents do not allege any newly discovered

evidence or submit that there has been an intervening change in the law. Rather, they assert

that the Court committed clear error in finding a colorable basis for a Rohan claim because

Petitioner did not demonstrate that his assistance was necessary for counsel to complete the

merits briefing of his remaining claims. (Dkt. 127 at 1-2.)

The Rohan court sought to provide guidance to the district courts on this very issue.

Rohan, 334 F.3d at 817-18. The Rohan court established a low threshold regarding the

showing a petitioner must make for a court to determine that his assistance may potentially

benefit counsel. Id. The Rohan court indicated, as follows: “requiring counsel to identify

with particularity what petitioner would tell them were he competent, rather than the general

areas where he could potentially assist, sets an unrealistically high bar under the

circumstances. . . . Requiring an incompetent petitioner’s counsel to identify precisely what

the petitioner would tell him were he able seems more likely to elicit the response, “Well if

I knew that, I would not have to ask!” Id. 

Counsel for Petitioner has identified claims where Petitioner potentially will provide

beneficial assistance during briefing of the remaining issues. For instance, counsel identified

Claim 9, Petitioner’s claim of judicial bias, and counsel’s need to understand any extrarecord interactions between Petitioner and the trial judge which may have underlain the

prosecutor acknowledging that sharp and contentious interactions had occurred between the

judge and Petitioner during trial. (See Dkt. 108 at 5 citing RT 5/18/91 at 4.) In addition,

counsel has identified other exhausted claims where extra-record information from Petitioner

may provide beneficial assistance in the litigation of the remaining claims. (Id. at 6-8.)

Given the low threshold established by Rohan, this Court did not clearly err in rejecting

Respondents’ argument that Petitioner could not potentially provide assistance in the

litigation of his remaining claims.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 128 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Respondents’ motion for reconsideration.

(Dkt. 127.)

DATED this 16th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 128 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3