Opinion ID: 2978449
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competency Through Involuntary Medication

Text: Thompson alleges that he is “involuntarily” taking antipsychotic medication, and that it is unconstitutional to execute him if he is rendered competent through the forced administration of medication (Thompson’s “chemical competency claim”). Thompson alleges that, having been forced to take medication in the past through the conservatorship proceedings, he could be required to take the medication again if he ever stopped voluntarily taking it. Thompson also contends that he has been subjected to physical abuse by prison guards when he has refused medication in the past. Finally, Thompson states that he is currently addicted to the medication, and is now physically incapable of living without medication. The district court dismissed this claim as procedurally defaulted, and found that even if it were not procedurally barred, it would be untimely, and that in any event, Thompson failed to state a claim.
The district court dismissed Thompson’s chemical competency claim for procedural default because Thompson “fail[ed] to fairly present his claim to the state courts before offering it as a federal constitutional violation in a habeas proceeding.” Thompson v. Bell, No. 04-CV-177, 2006 WL 1195892, at  (E.D.Tenn. May 4, 2006). The district court acknowledged that Thompson raised his chemical competency claim with his substantial change petition, but found that the incompetency-for-execution procedures set forth in Van Tran prohibited Thompson from raising any other claims Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 15 along with his claim that his condition had substantially changed. Id. (citing Van Tran, 6 S.W.3d at 272). “In determining whether a procedural default has occurred and, if so, what effect the default will have on federal review of a state conviction, the district court must consider whether (1) a state procedural rule exists that applies to the petitioner’s claim, (2) the petitioner failed to comply with the rule, (3) the state court actually applied the state rule in rejecting the petitioner’s claim, and (4) the state procedural rule is an adequate and independent ground upon which the state can rely to deny relief.” Frazier v. Huffman, 343 F.3d 780, 790 (6th Cir. 2003). “[A] procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas corpus review unless the last state court rendering a reasoned opinion in the case ‘clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar.’” Id. at 791 (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263 (1989)). However, even if the state court failed to reject a claim on a procedural ground, the petitioner is also in procedural default “by failing to raise a claim in state court, and pursue that claim through the state’s ‘ordinary appellate review procedures.’” Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 846-7 (1999)); see also Deitz v. Money, 391 F.3d 804, 808 (6th Cir. 2004) (“A federal court is also barred from hearing issues that could have been raised in the state courts, but were not[.]”). The corollary to this rule is that where a petitioner raised a claim in the state court but in violation of a state’s procedural rule, a state court must expressly reject the claim on that procedural ground for a federal court to deem the claim defaulted. See Williams, 460 F.3d at 806 (noting that a state court’s expressed rejection of a petitioner’s claim on procedural basis and petitioner’s complete failure to raise a claim in state court are the two ways a claim can be in procedural default). Thompson formally raised his chemical competency claim in his substantial change petition to the Tennessee Supreme Court in September 2005; he included the chemical competency claim with that petition. The Tennessee Supreme Court did not address the claim in its December 13, 2005 order denying that a substantial change had occurred. Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 16 According to the district court, Thompson violated a state procedural rule, purportedly set forth in Van Tran, that a petitioner filing a substantial change petition may not raise any claims for the first time with his substantial change petition. Yet the only statement in Van Tran regarding a petitioner’s motion for a finding of substantial change is as follows: If a prisoner is found to be competent, subsequent Ford claims will be disallowed unless the prisoner, by way of a motion for stay, provides this Court with an affidavit from a mental health professional showing that there has been a substantial change in the prisoner’s mental health since the previous determination of competency was made and the showing is sufficient to raise a substantial question about the prisoner’s competency to be executed. Van Tran, 6 S.W.3d at 272. Although the district court concluded from this statement that Tennessee forbids a petitioner from bringing any new claims related to his incompetency for execution along with his substantial change petition, nothing in Van Tran explicitly states such a rule; in fact, the reference in Van Tran to “subsequent Ford claims,” in the plural, indicates that Van Tran anticipated that other incompetency claims would be brought in addition to a claim of substantial change. Regardless, even if such a limitation existed, the Tennessee Supreme Court, in denying Thompson’s petition for a finding of substantial change, did not refer to it. The court rejected Thompson’s argument that substantial change in his mental condition had occurred, and did not address or even mention Thompson’s chemical competency argument. The district court, in finding procedural default, cited Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989), for the proposition that a claim is not fairly presented to a state court where the claim is presented “in a procedurally inappropriate manner which renders consideration on its merits unlikely.” Thompson v. Bell, No. 04-CV-177, 2006 WL 1195892, at  (E.D. Tenn. May 4, 2006). However, the district court misinterpreted Castille, which held only that, where a habeas petitioner had the opportunity to raise a claim in the state courts on direct appeal but only raised it for the first time on discretionary review, such a claim is not fairly presented. 489 U.S. at 351; see also Clinkscale v. Carter, 375 F.3d 430, 440 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding that Castille’s Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 17 holding did not require a finding of procedural default because, “[u]nlike the petitioner in Castille, Clinkscale raised his [constitutional] claim on direct appeal, in which there were no special limitations on the ability of the [state court] to reach the merits of that claim”) (emphasis added). Certainly, every time a claim is presented to a state court in violation of its own procedural rule, it is “unlikely” that the state court would consider its merits, but we nevertheless require a state court to expressly deny such a claim based on the procedural rule in order for the claim to be in procedural default. See Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 327 (1985) (“The mere existence of a basis for a state procedural bar does not deprive [federal courts] of jurisdiction; the state court must actually have relied on the procedural bar as an independent basis for its disposition of the case.”). In Thompson’s case–where it is unclear that there even was a state rule that barred him from raising his chemical competency claim–an express statement from the state court is even more necessary. Because Thompson indisputably presented his chemical competency petition to the Tennessee Supreme Court in his substantial change petition, this is not a case where we can find procedural default in spite of that court’s failure to reject the claim on a procedural ground. See Williams, 460 F.3d at 806. Because the state court did not “clearly and expressly state[] that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar,” the rules of procedural default did not bar the district court from considering the claim. See Frazier, 343 F.3d at 790. Thus, Thompson’s chemical competency claim is not procedurally barred.
Respondent argues, and the district court found, that even if Thompson did not procedurally default on his chemical competency claim, his claim is still time-barred. With exceptions not relevant here, federal habeas petitioners in custody pursuant to a judgment in a state court must file their petitions within one year of the date judgment becomes final on direct review or the time to seek such review expires. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Because Thompson presented his chemical competency claim to the Tennessee Supreme Court on September 23, 2005, in his substantial change petition, the Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 18 state courts’ judgment with respect to the chemical competency claim first became final on December 13, 2005, when the Tennessee Supreme Court denied Thompson’s substantial change petition without addressing his chemical competency claim. Thompson amended his federal habeas petition to include his chemical competency claim on March 17, 2006, well before the one-year limitations period expired. Accordingly, Thompson’s chemical competency claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

“If deference to the state court is inapplicable or inappropriate, we ‘exercise our independent judgment’ and review the claim de novo.” McKenzie v. Smith, 326 F.3d 721, 727 (6th Cir. 2003). “Where the state court has not addressed or resolved claims based on federal law, most courts, including this one, have held that the decision is not an ‘adjudication on the merits.’ Thus, a federal habeas court reviews such unaddressed claims de novo.” Howard v. Bouchard, 405 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir. 2005). Because the Tennessee state courts did not adjudicate Thompson’s chemical competency claim on the merits, there is no state court decision to which this Court can defer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly, this Court reviews the district court’s adjudication of Thompson’s chemical competency claim de novo. In reviewing the district court’s determination that Thompson failed to state a claim, this Court accepts Thompson’s factual allegations supporting the claim as true. See Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405 (6th Cir. 1998).
Neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has squarely addressed whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits rendering a prisoner competent for execution through involuntary medication. However, in addressing previous Due Process claims, the Supreme Court has recognized that mentally ill state prisoners have a “significant liberty interest” in avoiding unwanted Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 19 antipsychotic drugs. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990); Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 134-35 (1992). Considering whether a state may forcibly medicate a defendant to render him competent to stand trial, the Supreme Court has held that a state may do so only if the treatment is (1) “medically appropriate, i.e., in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his condition;” (2) “substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial;” and (3) “necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests,” given less intrusive alternatives. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 179-81 (2003) (emphasis in original). Although the Court in Sell found forcible medication permissible in that case because “important governmental interests are at stake” when the state tries to bring a defendant to trial, the Court added: “Special circumstances may lessen the importance of that interest. The defendant’s failure to take drugs voluntarily, for example, may mean lengthy confinement in an institution for the mentally ill–and that would diminish the risks that ordinarily attach to freeing without punishment one who has committed a serious crime.” Id. at 180. Thus, the Sell Court reiterated the importance of a prisoner’s interest in avoiding forcible medication, and signaled that it may be unconstitutional to medicate a prisoner already destined for a lengthy confinement just to render the prisoner competent for legal proceedings. Although the Supreme Court in Harper, Riggins and Sell addressed due process challenges and not Eighth Amendment claims, the logical inference from these holdings is that subjecting a prisoner to involuntary medication when it is not absolutely necessary or medically appropriate is contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” that underpin the Eighth Amendment. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01 (1958) (“[T]he words of the [Eighth] Amendment are not precise, and . . . their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”). Moreover, the main reason why Justice Powell viewed the execution of insane prisoners as “cruel”–that their inability to understand the reason for their punishment robs them of “the opportunity to prepare, mentally and spiritually, for their death,” Ford, 477 U.S. at 421–applies with equal force to those who have been rendered chemically competent involuntarily. If forced Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 20 medication reduces a prisoner’s delusions and controls his outward behavior, but does not improve his understanding of his impending death or his ability to prepare for it, it is quite possible that the prisoner cannot be executed under the principles of Ford. The concurring opinion, certain that prior Supreme Court precedent has already precluded such a claim, impermissibly ties loose strands of prior precedents together to reach its conclusion. Essentially, our concurring colleague surmises that because the Supreme Court has held that forced medication is not inherently unconstitutional, and that executions are not inherently unconstitutional, the execution of a prisoner rendered competent through medically appropriate forced medication must be constitutional. This leap of logic ignores the Supreme Court’s repeated recent willingness to deem unconstitutional the execution of prisoners who the state previously had a legitimate right to execute–including those with mental or developmental deficiencies. See, e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded defendants); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 563 (2005) (applying Atkins to prohibit execution of prisoners who were under eighteen years of age at the time of their capital crimes). We simply do not share the concurring opinion’s certainty that, given the Eighth Amendment’s “evolving standards of decency,” Trop, 356 U.S. at 100-01 (emphasis added), a state’s right to execute a prisoner constitutionally hinges on administering pharmaceuticals that give an otherwise incompetent prisoner the appearance of competence.2 Regardless, in this case, it is not necessary to resolve these difficult questions, because regardless of whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a prisoner rendered competent through the forced administration of medication, the district court did not err in holding that Thompson failed to state a claim. Even accepting all of Thompson’s allegations as true, he is not being forcibly medicated right now. Although he may be right that the state would forcibly medicate him if he stopped taking his 2 The concurring opinion mischaracterizes our view as stating that the execution of those rendered chemically competent “likely” violates the Eighth Amendment. Concurring Op. at 28. We do not go so far. Rather, we note only that it is possible, under some circumstances, that such an act would amount to a constitutional violation for the reasons discussed. Nos. 06-5744/5770 Thompson v. Bell Page 21 medication voluntarily, those are not the facts he presents to us. Thompson’s argument that his medication is involuntary because he is addicted to the drugs may be accurate from a physiological perspective, but does not amount to an allegation that the state is ordering him to take medication. Because this appeal does not present the case of a prisoner who may only be competent by way of forced medication, this Court will leave the question of whether executing the “chemically competent” constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for another day. The district court’s dismissal of Thompson’s chemical competency claim is affirmed, without prejudice to Thompson raising a chemical competency claim in the future should he be forcibly medicated.3