Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-16/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

 The parties cannot agree on an expert, they cannot agree on whether the respective litigation 1

teams can provide materials to the expert, and they cannot agree on the access Holt’s counsel should be

given to their client in advance of any examination. To address their disagreements, they have devised

a drawn out briefing schedule.

97dp06210.OReProcedure2DetermineCompentence.hlt.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., As Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

 Respondent. )

Case No. 1:97-CV-06210-AWI

ORDER RE: PROCEDURE TO

DETERMINE PETITIONER’S

COMPETENCE TO PROCEED WITH

LITIGATION

This matter is before the Court on the July 30, 2008 Joint Submission by Petitioner John Lee

Holt (“Holt”) and Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr., as Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the

“Warden”). In the Joint Submission the parties attempt to agree on a procedure to determine Holt’s

competence, including the appointment of an independent expert to conduct a mental state examination,

a time frame for completing the examination, and the presentation of further argument to the Court. The

Court finds the proposed procedure to be cumbersome in light of the numerous issues upon which the

parties cannot agree. Significantly, the Joint Submission fails to specify compensation rates for any of 1

the proposed experts.

At issue is whether Holt has the capacity to appreciate his position, make rational choices with

respect to the proceedings in this Court, and to communicate rationally with counsel regarding the

proceedings, or whether he issuffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect affecting his capacity.

See Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 (1966); Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 819 (9th

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 189 Filed 08/15/08 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

 The Court’s understanding that Holt currently is housed at San Quentin is based documents 2

appended to a sealed argument in his motion to stay federal habeas corpus proceedings, which was filed

on June 18, 2008.

 The Court has been provided copies of the deposition transcripts. The Warden’s counsel 3

participated in all three of these depositions.

97dp06210.OReProcedure2DetermineCompentence.hlt.wpd 2

Cir. 2002). To resolve these issues, the Court must have an adequate factual basis consisting of detailed

information following a thorough examination of Holt. 

Although Holt currently is housed at San Quentin State Prison, he has had previous admissions

to the psychiatric hospital operated by the California State Department of Mental Heath at the California

Medical Facility at Vacaville. He has been examined and assessed by mental health practitioners at

2

both the San Quentin and Vacaville facilities. Three of these mental health practitioners, Lois

Armstrong, Ph.D., Roderick Ponath, M.D., and Aubrey Dent, M.D., were deposed by Holt’s litigation

team on November 9, 2006, February 1, 2007, and February 2, 2007, respectively. Numerous excerpts 3

from Holt’s medical records have been presented to the Court as exhibits and attachments to the

deposition transcripts and other court filings. Both parties have designated their own mental health

experts.

To expedite the process for determining Holt’s competence to proceed with the litigation, the

Court suggests an alternative procedure to that formulated by the parties, that is, to have the parties’

respective retained experts review the deposition transcripts of Drs. Armstrong, Ponath, and Dent, plus

the documents appended to those transcripts and the documents appended to Holt’s motion to stay

federal habeas corpus proceedings. The parties also should identify what additional documents they

would like the opposing expert(s) to review. If this procedure proves to be workable, Holt’s attorneys

will be asked submit a revised case management plan and budget for Phase IV-A of the litigation, under

seal. Expert expenses incurred on behalf Holt will be compensated by CJA funds. Expert expenses

incurred on behalf of the Warden will be paid by the State of California. If this procedure proves to be

unworkable, the Court will consider alternatives. One of those alternatives is to transfer Holt back to

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 189 Filed 08/15/08 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 A decision as to whether Holt could be interviewed or questioned by the parties’ experts also 4

would be committed to the discretion and supervision of the treating mental health practitioners.

97dp06210.OReProcedure2DetermineCompentence.hlt.wpd 3

the psychiatric hospital at the Vacaville California Medical Facility and to allow the parties’ respective

experts to observe him, as recommended and supervised by the treating mental health practitioners.

4

The parties are directed to meet and confer within two calendar weeks from the date of filing of

this order. Thereafter, they are directed to file separate responses to the Court’s proposed procedure for

determining Holt’s competence on or before September 5, 2008. The Court has set aside September 11,

2008 at 8:30 p.m. for a telephonic hearing in this matter.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2008 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

 Anthony W. Ishii

United States District Judge

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 189 Filed 08/15/08 Page 3 of 3