Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05994/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05994-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernest Lee Allen
Petitioner
Art Calderon
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST LEE ALLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ART CALDERON,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 01-5994 OWW DLB HC

SECOND ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING

BY PETITIONER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 27, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this action

for the Court to determine whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem was necessary. On

June 15, 2005, the Court issued an order appointing the Office of the Federal Defender and

directed that Petitioner, through counsel, submit a brief addressing whether the appointment of a

guardian ad litem is necessary and, if so, who the designated individual shall be.

On September 16, 2005, Petitioner submitted a brief. Respondent did not file a response.

In his briefing, Petitioner initially notes that he assumes “this court has followed the

appellate court’s ruling and has appointed the undersigned for the limited purpose of represented

Mr. Allen at a competency hearing.” (Briefing, at 4.) However, in conclusion, Petitioner

requests that “this court either set a date for a hearing on this issue or make a preliminary hearing

based on the information which is either already a part of the court’s record or included in this

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 01/30/06 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

 Petitioner has submitted a declaration by psychiatrist, Dr. Marc Talisman, indicating that Petitioner 1

suffers from Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia. (Exhibit A, to Court Doc. 10.) Petitioner has submitted his

own declaration as well as fellow inmate, Charles Johnson, indicating that due to Petitioner’s mental illness he does

not understand the nature of the court proceedings. (Court Doc. 10, at 2-5.) Petitioner further submits evidence that

he has a reading vocabulary of grade 2 and a reading comprehension of grade 1.3. (Court Doc. 37, Exhibit A.) 

Petitioner’s counsel further indicates that Petitioner’s current psychologist, Dr. Bradford Steele, if called to testify

would state that Petitioner suffers from chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia which is controlled by psychotropic

medication: Sertraline. Petitioner further suffers from anxiety and depression. (Id. at 6.) 

 This is substantiated by the fact that counsel seeks, in Petitioner’s best interests, appointment for all 2

purposes in this action. 

2

document that Mr. Allen is not competent to represent himself in the prosecution of his habeas

petition.” (Briefing at 7.) Petitioner reasons that if Petitioner is found to be incompetent then the

court must determine how the habeas will proceed, i.e., how will the case proceed if Mr. Allen is

appointed a guardian ad litem versus legal counsel. Petitioner reasons that Petitioner’s

incarceration status as an EOP inmate will affect a guard ad litem’s ability to make informed

decisions to protect Petitioner’s interests. Petitioner concludes that “[t]hese concerns could best

be addressed with the appointment of counsel for all purposes as legal counsel has less restricted

access to Mr. Allen which would allow counsel to more effectively represent Mr. Allen’s

interests and hopefully avoid complications regarding representation issues in the future.” (Brief,

at 7-8.) 

Based on the evidence presented, the Court makes the initial finding that Petitioner

is not competent to represent himself in this action. In response to Petitioner’s September 16, 1

2005, briefing, the Court notes that it appointed counsel generally in this action, and the

appointment is not limited to the competency determination. That considered, the next issue to 2

be resolved is whether Petitioner is able to assist counsel in pursing the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus and, if not, who the guardian ad litem shall be to assist counsel. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall

submit a brief addressing the above issue; 

2. Within twenty (20) days from the date Petitioner submits his briefing, Respondent

may file a response; and

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 01/30/06 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

3. Following the briefing schedule outlined above, the Court will either set a hearing,

if necessary, or issue a written ruling addressing the appointment of a guardian ad

litem and how the action shall proceed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05994-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 3