Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00652/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00652-1/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

08cv0652

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH McDONALD, Civil No. 08-0652 L (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ON MOTION FOR STAY;

(2) CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF

NEXT OF FRIEND AS A REQUEST

FOR A GUARDIAN AD LITEM; and 

(3) REQUIRING ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION REGARDING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

v.

HAAWS, Warden,

Respondent.

On April 1, 2008, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 9,

2008, the case was transferred to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court denied Petitioner’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his case without prejudice and with leave to amend

on April 17, 2008. Petitioner was given until June 20, 2008, to satisfy the filing fee requirement

and file a First Amended Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s

Order. (Doc. No. 3.) On May 19, 2008, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition,

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 9 Filed 05/29/08 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

1

 The Court granted Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on May 21, 2008. (See Doc. No.

7.)

08cv0652

a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, a Motion for Stay and Request for Appointment of Next

of Friend, which the Court construes as a Motion for the Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem.

(See Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8.)1

MOTION FOR STAY

Petitioner has filed a motion asking this Court to stay the proceedings in this case pending

his exhaustion of claims in the California Supreme Court. It appears that Petitioner is currently

exhausting three claims in the California Supreme Court via a habeas corpus petition filed on

April 1, 2008. (See Pet’rs Motion for Stay, at 17.) The United States Supreme Court and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have set forth criteria for determining when a stay is appropriate.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a stay is available only

in “limited circumstances” and where there is “‘good cause for the failure to exhaust.’” Jackson

v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78). Thus, in order

to warrant a stay, Petitioner must demonstrate there are arguably meritorious claims which he

wishes to exhaust in state court and that he has diligently pursued those claims. Id.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

(1) Petitioner is to file a brief in support of his motion for stay which (a) clearly

identifies the claims he seeks to exhaust in state court; (b) clearly sets forth the merits of those

claims; and (c) clearly sets forth the measures he has taken to diligently pursue his state court

remedies. Petitioner’s brief is to be filed no later than July 14, 2008;

(2) Respondent may file a response to Petitioner’s brief no later than August 14,

2008; and

(3) Petitioner may file a reply to the response no later than August 28, 2008.

MOTION FOR A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Petitioner has also filed a document entitled “Points and Authorities in Support of Next

of Friend,” which the Court construes as a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

(See Doc. No. 8.) In a document prepared by fellow inmate M. Lindsey, Petitioner alleges that

he is unable to litigate his habeas corpus petition due to mental incapacity. (See Pet’rs Motion

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 9 Filed 05/29/08 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

08cv0652

for Guardian Ad Litem, at 2-4.) He also includes a declaration in which he states he is under the

care of a psychiatrist, and a declaration from M. Linsday in which Lindsay states that he has

observed Petitioner while in prison and that because of his mental disabilities Petitioner would

not be able to pursue his habeas corpus petition on his own. (Id. at 5-8.) Finally, Petitioner

includes at least some of his prison psychiatric records, which indicate he is in the Enhanced

Outpatient Program at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, that he has been diagnosed

with major depressive disorder with psychotic features, and that he is currently taking several

psychotropic medications. (Id. at 6-24.) 

As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether Petitioner has presented

substantial evidence of incompetence to warrant the Court conducting a competency hearing.

In Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005), the petitioner 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, 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. Because 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,” the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have appointed

counsel for Petitioner and conducted a competency hearing. Id. In concluding Allen was

entitled to a competency hearing, the Ninth Circuit stated:

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c), courts are required to “appoint a guardian

ad litem for an . . .incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or

shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the

incompetent person.” This Rule applies to habeas petitioners as it does to other

civil litigants . . . .

. . . . We do not hold that a petitioner should be appointed counsel for habeas

proceedings. We merely rule that counsel should be appointed for the limited

purpose of representing the petitioner at the competency hearing as required by

Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, should the district court determine

it is advisable.

Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153.

At this point, it is unclear whether there is “substantial evidence of incompetence” to

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 9 Filed 05/29/08 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

08cv0652

warrant the Court conducting a competency hearing and appointing a guardian ad litem.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner is directed to file a paper entitled “Additional Information Re

Application for Guardian Ad Litem” with accompanying declarations and exhibits no later than

July 14, 2008. The additional information must establish that: (a) Petitioner currently suffers

from a mental illness, and (b) the mental illness prevents him from understanding and complying

with the Court’s orders. The additional information may include declarations from Petitioner,

fellow inmates or medical and psychiatric personnel having personal knowledge of Petitioner’s

incompetence. Petitioner should also include any further recent psychiatric records in his

possession; and

(2) Respondent shall file a response to Petitioner’s Additional Information Re

Application for Guardian Ad Litem no later than August 14, 2008. The response shall contain

the results of Respondent’s independent investigation into Petitioner’s incompetence in addition

to legal argument. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2008

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00652-CAB-PCL Document 9 Filed 05/29/08 Page 4 of 4