Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_94-cv-00641/USCOURTS-cand-3_94-cv-00641-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

Michael HILL,

 

 Petitioner,

 v.

Robert L. AYERS Jr., Warden of San

Quentin State Prison,

 

 Respondent.

Case Number 4-94-cv-641-CW

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING

DETERMINATION OF

PETITIONER’S MEDICAL AND

PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION

[Docket No. 262]

Petitioner Michael Hill, a condemned inmate at San Quentin

State Prison, moves for a stay of these federal habeas

proceedings pending a determination of his competence to proceed.

A prisoner “has a statutory right to competence in his

federal habeas proceedings. . . .” Rohan v. Woodford, 334 F.3d

803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). The “relevant question” to determine

competence in the federal habeas context is “whether [the

petitioner] now has the capacity to understand his position and

to communicate rationally with counsel.” Id. at 819. “[W]here

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 278 Filed 03/10/08 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

an incompetent capital habeas petitioner raises claims that could

benefit from his ability to communicate rationally, refusing to

stay proceedings pending restoration of competence denies him his

statutory right to assistance of counsel, whether or not counsel

can identify with precision the information sought.” Id.

Accordingly, in such a situation, federal habeas proceedings

“must be stayed until [the petitioner] is competent.” Id.

In the present action, as in Rohan, Petitioner has raised

“claims that could benefit from his ability to communicate

rationally,” id., such as claims of innocence and ineffective

assistance of counsel in presenting mitigating evidence at the

penalty phase of his trial. See id. at 818. In addition,

Petitioner’s counsel has submitted substantial evidence from

multiple sources that indicates that Petitioner may lack “the

capacity to understand his position and to communicate rationally

with counsel.” Id. at 819. The statements of Respondent’s own

staff psychiatrists are particularly significant in this regard. 

Dr. John Dupre reports that Petitioner is suffering from a

predominant delusional system, which prevents him from

understanding his position. Dr. Eggert effectively suggests that

Petitioner’s delusions inhibit his ability to communicate

rationally. Both psychiatrists confirm that, due to Petitioner’s

deteriorating mental health, Petitioner is receiving care in the

hospital unit at San Quentin pending his urgent transfer to the

Department of Mental Health Acute Care Unit at the California

Medical Facility at Vacaville, because San Quentin is unable to

treat him adequately.

Respondent contends that these proceedings should not be

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 278 Filed 03/10/08 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

stayed even if Petitioner is incompetent because of the

limitations on habeas relief established by the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132,

110 Stat. 1214 (1996). However, there is no support for the

argument that AEDPA’s limitations on the Court’s power to grant

relief somehow diminish a capital habeas petitioner’s right to

counsel while pursuing habeas relief. Indeed, Rohan makes clear

that AEDPA’s restrictions on successive petitions actually

support the need to grant a stay of proceedings when a capital

habeas petitioner is incompetent. 334 F.3d at 812.

Respondent also asserts that the present action is

distinguishable from Rohan because Petitioner has already filed

an exhausted petition, and his counsel does not require his

assistance to prepare his traverse. However, this argument is

untenable under Rohan: the entire discussion in Rohan of the

right to competence is premised on the notion that “Blackstone’s

exhaustive recitation of the stages at which the right

attached—arraignment, trial, judgment and execution—might

reasonably be read to suggest a continuing right, one that

attaches to all significant phases of the criminal justice

process, whatever they may happen to be.” Id. at 814. 

Petitioner’s right to competence persists throughout his federal

habeas proceedings; if Petitioner is incompetent, the Court

“must” stay these proceedings until he regains his competence. 

Id. at 819.

Of course, the evidence that suggests that Petitioner may be

incompetent is insufficient to establish that Petitioner is in

fact incompetent. Accordingly, Respondent is correct that it

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 278 Filed 03/10/08 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

would be premature for the Court to stay the proceedings at this

time. Rather, the parties shall meet and confer to attempt to

stipulate to a case management schedule that will allow for

Petitioner to be examined by mental-health experts to determine

his competence. In the meantime, it would be inefficient—and

potentially inappropriate—for Petitioner to file his traverse.

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, Petitioner’s

Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Determination of

Petitioner’s Medical and Psychiatric Condition is granted in part

and denied in part: The parties shall meet and confer and within

thirty days after this Order is filed shall file a joint case

management statement that includes a proposed schedule; if the

parties are unable to stipulate to a jointly proposed schedule,

each party shall explain in no more than five pages why the Court

should adopt his proposed schedule. Petitioner shall not file

his traverse pending further order of the Court. The hearing on

Petitioner’s Motion that is set for March 13, 2008, is hereby

vacated.

It is so ordered.

DATED: March 10, 2008 ______________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 278 Filed 03/10/08 Page 4 of 4