Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-02525/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-02525-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dean Joseph Woodburn, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 01-2525 PHX NVW (VAM)

)

Terry L. Stewart, et al., ) ORDER

)

 Respondents. )

Pending before the Court is disposition of this matter

following remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for

possible factual development and determination of petitioner's

claim to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to

his contention he was mentally incompetent during the period the

statute of limitations ran (between December, 2000 and December,

2001). 

Pursuant to the Court's orders, (Docs. 60 and 75),

petitioner filed two statements outlining the basis for his

equitable tolling claim and stating what evidence he expected to

present should his request for an evidentiary hearing be granted. 

(Docs. 61 and 76). Petitioner also seeks an evidentiary hearing

on his substantive claim that he was not competent to enter a

guilty plea in 1998. (See Doc. 61 at p. 9; see also Doc. 11 at p.

6). Petitioner further requests that his counsel on appeal, Anders

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Rosenquist, be appointed to represent him during proceedings

before this Court on remand. (See Doc. 61 at p. 9). Respondents

filed a response opposing equitable tolling as well as an

evidentiary hearing on this issue. (Doc. 71). 

Standards for an evidentiary hearing in section 2254 cases

are restrictive. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) provides that "a

determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be

presumed to be correct." Subsection (e)(2) provides that if the

applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in

State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary

hearing on the issue unless he or she shows:

(A) the claim relies on - 

 (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have

been previously discovered through the exercise of due

diligence; and

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient

to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but

for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder

would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying

offense.

In this case, on the question of equitable tolling, the

factual predicate underlying the claim could not have been

discovered while petitioner's claims were pending in state court. 

The period at issue (December 2000 - December, 2001), necessarily

came at the conclusion of state court proceedings. In fact, the

issue was not even raised until petitioner appealed this matter to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following the District Court's

denial of his habeas petition. Therefore, petitioner could not

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 7
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

have raised the question of mental competency during the time the

statute of limitations on his federal claims ran (December, 2000 -

December, 2001) in state court. In addition, if petitioner's

claim of mental incompetence during this time frame is accepted,

his failure to file a timely federal petition is due to

"extraordinary circumstances beyond his control," that "if true,

entitle him to equitable tolling." See Roy v. Lampert, ___ F.3d

___, 2006 WL 1897100 (9th Cir. (Or.) July 12, 2006) (citing

Calderon v. U.S. District Court ("Beeler"), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288;

Laws v. LaMarque, 351 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003), respectively).

The Court directed that petitioner file a statement

explaining what evidence he hoped to present at an evidentiary

hearing to establish he was incompetent during the time the

limitations period ran. (Doc. 75). Petitioner filed a statement

explaining that, in addition to his own testimony, he will provide

testimony and letters from Thomas N. Thomas, M.D. (Doc. 76 at p.

2). In addition, petitioner states that if an evidentiary hearing

is held he "would be able to request funds to have another

independent evaluation of his psychological condition." (Id.). 

Because the Court believes that a sufficient question exists and

notes that no evidentiary hearing has been held on this issue, the

motion will be granted.

Petitioner also requests that he be permitted an evidentiary

hearing on his underlying claim he was not competent to plead

guilty (Ground II of the amended habeas petition). In the amended

petition, petitioner argues that his constitutional rights were

violated because his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 3 of 7
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

In addition, attached to his statement, petitioner has

included two letters from Dr. Thomas dated December 2, 1994 and

January 26, 1997, in which Dr. Thomas opines that petitioner was

not at those times, competent to participate in his own defense due

to his bipolar disorder. (See Doc. 61 at Exhibits A and B).

4

voluntary due to his mental state. (See Doc. 11 at p. 6). 

Petitioner also alleges his counsel rendered ineffective

assistance because he failed to request a competency hearing to

determine if he was competent to enter a plea (Ground I). (See

id. at p. 5). 

Nothing in the record indicates petitioner was given an

evidentiary hearing on the question of whether he was mentally

competent to enter a guilty plea in July, 1998 (Ground II). 

Indeed, he contends counsel was ineffective for failing to request

a competency evaluation. (See Doc. 11 at p. 5 (Ground I)). The

Court believes a sufficient question of fact exists relative to

Ground II of his amended petition to permit an evidentiary

hearing.1 

Furthermore, the interests of judicial economy will be best

served by considering the substantive question of his ability to

plead guilty in 1998 along with the issue of his mental competence

during the period the statute of limitations was running. 

Otherwise, if petitioner prevails on his equitable tolling claim,

a second evidentiary hearing on his underlying claim of mental

competency to enter a guilty plea would likely be necessary. 

The Court notes that the habeas record is not complete. 

Although respondents have included copies of state court orders

disposing of his Rule 32 petitions, respondents have not included

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 4 of 7
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 5

copies of petitioner's actual petitions and briefs in support as

well as the State's responses thereto. Petitioner states, and the

trial court indicated in its order denying Rule 32 relief, that

petitioner's habeas claims were raised in state court. (See Doc.

11 at pp. 5,6; Doc. 35, Exhibit C at p. 1). Nevertheless, under

Rule 5(d)(1) and (2) of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the

petitions and briefs filed by petitioner in his Rule 32

proceedings (both in the trial court and on review to state

appellate courts) and the State's responses thereto should be

included in the record. 

Further, although nothing in the record indicates any type

of competency hearing or request for such a hearing in the state

court, if in fact, counsel did request a competency hearing and/or

a hearing was held, the motions and the transcript of any such

hearing should also be included. Absent such documentation, the

Court will accept petitioner's contention he had no such hearing

and counsel failed to request such a hearing.

In addition, because respondents addressed both the

substance of petitioner's habeas claims and the issue of equitable

tolling in their response, (Doc. 71 at pp. 13-30), petitioner will

be granted additional time to file a reply to respondents'

arguments on the substance of his habeas claims. The Court

previously denied petitioner's request to file a reply as

premature. (See Docs. 72 and 75). 

Finally, in his first statement, petitioner requested that

his counsel on appeal, Anders Rosenquist, be appointed to

represent him in proceedings on remand. (Doc. 61 at p. 9). In

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 5 of 7
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 6

light of the Court's decision to grant his request for an

evidentiary hearing and in light of the language of Rule 8(c),

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, providing that "[i]f an

evidentiary hearing is required the judge shall appoint counsel

for a petitioner who qualifies for appointment of counsel under 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(g)", this motion will be granted. Bashor v.

Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.) ("Section 3006A(g) provides

that counsel may be appointed for an impoverished habeas

petitioner whenever 'the court determines that the interests of

justice so require ...' Such appointment of counsel becomes

mandatory, when an evidentiary hearing is required."), cert.

denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984); see also Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d

571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 857 (1995) ("If a

district court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition,

the interests of justice require that the court appoint counsel

for the petitioner.").

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Request for an

Evidentiary Hearing on his claim of mental incompetency with

respect to tolling of the statute of limitations, as well as his

underlying claim his 1998 guilty plea was invalid because he was

not mentally competent at that time (Ground II of the amended

habeas petition) is granted. The hearing shall be set for Monday,

September 18, 2006, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The Court will issue a

writ for petitioner's appearance at the evidentiary hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 20 days

from the date of filing of this order to file additional

documentation pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 6 of 7
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 7

2254 Cases (including copies of any Rule 32 petitions and

petitions for review filed by petitioner, as well as responses

thereto filed by the State), and any motions and/or hearing

transcripts indicating petitioner's counsel sought and/or obtained

a hearing on petitioner's competency to plead guilty.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have 20 days

from the filing of this order to file a reply to respondents

response (Doc. 71) addressing the substance of his habeas claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Anders Rosenquist, Esq., be

appointed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g) to represent petitioner

in these proceedings.

 DATED this 26th of July, 2006.

Case 2:01-cv-02525-NVW Document 77 Filed 07/28/06 Page 7 of 7