Court Opinion

ID: 9493845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:20:55.540659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:03.800794
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In 1986, Petitioner-Appellee, Stephen Michael West (“West”), was convicted of the first-degree premeditated murders of Wanda and Sheila Romines in the Criminal Court of Union County, Tennessee and was sentenced to death for each murder. Following his conviction, West challenged his conviction and sentence in the Tennessee state courts, both through direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings, exhausting all of his state remedies on June 7, 2000, when the Tennessee Supreme Court denied rehearing on its decision to affirm the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision denying West post-conviction relief. On November 7, 2000, the Tennessee Supreme Court then entered an order setting West’s execution for March 1, 2001, a date more than three months before West’s limitations period for filing a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 would expire. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
On February 20, 2001, Roger W. Dickson, William Harris, and Elisabeth Donno-vin (hereinafter referred to as “defense counsel”), who had previously represented West in his state post-conviction proceedings, filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for appointment as counsel for West and a motion to stay West’s execution to allow them to conduct an investigation into his apparent refusal to allow counsel to file a federal habeas corpus petition for him. On February 21, 2001, after holding a hearing at which West was present and was invited to participate, a federal district judge in the Middle District of Tennessee granted defense counsel’s motion for appointment of counsel and further authorized such counsel to retain a mental health expert to evaluate West, but refrained from ruling on defense counsel’s motion to stay the execution. The district judge transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On February 23, 2001, a federal district judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee granted defense counsel’s motion for a stay of execution after holding a telephone conference on the motion.
Respondent-Appellant, Warden Ricky Bell (“Bell”), now appeals “from the order staying petitioner’s execution set for 1:00 a.m. CST, 1 March 2001, entered in this action on the 23rd day of February, 2001.” For the following reasons, I would affirm the district court’s stay of execution.
*344I.
Bell argues that this court should vacate the district court’s stay of execution because defense counsel lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. I disagree. Instead, I believe that defense counsel can assert rights for West as a next friend.
To obtain “next friend” standing, one must bear the burden of establishing two requirements. First, one “must provide an adequate explanation — such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other- disability — why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990); Demosthenes v. Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 734, 110 S.Ct. 2223, 109 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990). Second, one “must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163, 110 S.Ct. 1717. In this case, defense counsel has successfully satisfied both of these factors.
A.
First, defense counsel has satisfied the initial requirement for obtaining “next friend” status by providing the district court with reasonable cause to believe that West is incompetent to make a decision to forego filing a federal habeas corpus petition. In Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966), the Supreme Court held that a defendant may not forego his rights to pursue further habeas proceedings unless he has the “capacity to appreciate his position and make a rational choice with respect to continuing or abandoning further litigation or on the other hand whether he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect which may substantially affect his capacity in the premises.” Id. at 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505. Defense counsel has presented numerous pieces of evidence indicating that West may lack the capacity to make a rational choice to abandon his right to file a federal habeas corpus application.
To begin, defense counsel alerted the district court to the record in the state court, which is replete with evidence of West’s history of emotional disturbance and mental problems. For example, this record contains the report of Dr. Eric Engum, a clinical psychologist, who conducted a two-hour evaluation of West in December 1995 and determined that West suffered from depression, mixed personality disorder, and extreme emotional disturbance, and that West had a lot of anger resulting from earlier childhood experiences. West v. State, No. 03C01-9708-CR-00321, 1998 WL 309090, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.App. June 12, 1998). Indeed, Dr. Engum noted that “[ujnder extreme levels of stress ... West may, in fact, experience brief temporary psychotic breaks.” En-gum Aff., ¶ 4. The record also contains testimony from West’s sisters Debbie and Patricia and his aunt Ruby, who detailed instances of violent abuse suffered by West. West v. State, 1998 WL 309090 at *2, 5. Additionally, defense counsel provided an affidavit from Dr. Keith Caruso, a psychiatrist who concluded that more time was needed fully to evaluate West’s competency and that West’s purported decision not to seek federal habeas corpus relief “may be driven by psychotic thought processes or suicidal inclinations that are driven by an underlying severe mental illness.” Caruso Aff., ¶ 21. In so doing, Caruso pointed out that West may have a genetic predisposition to mental illness; that the development of schizoid, paranoid, and borderline pathology have all been noted in West; and that West’s decision not to seek federal habeas corpus relief “does not follow logically with his scheduled marriage seven days after the date of his anticipated execution.” Caruso Aff., ¶¶ 14,19-21.
Also, defense counsel presented evidence detailing acts of alleged retaliation against West in prison and the impact that such retaliation was having on West’s emotional and mental state. For example, *345Donnovin, one of West’s post-conviction attorneys, submitted an affidavit in which she proclaimed that West told her he did not want to die, a statement that clearly contradicts any decision to forego any chance to seek federal habeas corpus relief. Indeed, in her affidavit, Donnovin states that, after informing her of the retaliation he was experiencing in prison, West told her “he believes that he has good arguments on appeal, but that he does not want to live under the current conditions in prison.” Donnovin Aff., ¶ 19; see also Harris Aff., ¶ 6 (same). Additionally, Jerry Wellborn, a chaplain who has visited West in his prison facility since 1989, declared in his affidavit that West “told [him] he did not wish to die.... He emphasized he wanted to live but had nothing to loose [sic] and that living is not worth the inhumane treatment and reprisals he was experiencing.” Wellborn Aff., ¶¶ 5-6. Moreover, defense counsel presented an affidavit from Daniel G. Matthews, a minister and spiritual counselor to West for fifteen years, who asserted that West was experiencing retaliation in his correctional facility that left him “destroyed emotionally, spiritually, and physically.” Matthews Aff., ¶ 15; see also Comer v. Stewart, 215 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that oppressive prison conditions may adversely affect a person’s mental health).
Finally, defense counsel provided the district court with a transcript of the proceedings before the district court in the Middle District of Tennessee. As the transcript reveals, during these proceedings, when specifically asked if he wanted appointed counsel or if he wanted a stay of execution, West refused to respond, thereby failing to make an explicit and clear waiver of his right to file a habeas petition. The colloquy was as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. West, I would like to address you personally. Would you like to speak to the court?
PETITIONER WEST: No, sir.
THE COURT: Are you sure?
PETITIONER WEST: (No audible response.)
THE COURT: I’ll let you reflect on that a minute. I’ll ask you again in a moment while I gather my thoughts. Now, Mr. West, it would be helpful to the court if you would be willing to indicate if you want counsel appointed to represent you or not, and whether you want a stay of your execution that’s set for March 1, 2001, or not. If you do not wish to speak to the court, that’s certainly your right, but it would be helpful and informative for the court to make an informed decision.
And I invite you, if you would like to, to step up to the podium and tell me whatever you have on your mind and what you want to say about this particular proceeding or anything related to it.
Is there anything you would like to say?
PETITIONER WEST: No, sir.
Tr. at 28-29 (emphasis added). West did not express a desire to forego filing a habeas petition and made no statement that demonstrated an understanding of the consequences of choosing not to seek federal habeas corpus relief. In fact, West’s behavior at this hearing was unlike the defendants in Whitmore and Harper v. Parker, 177 F.3d 567 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1141, 119 S.Ct. 2015, 143 L.Ed.2d 1029 (1999), who were determined to be competent to forego further legal proceedings. Unlike West, in Whitmore the defendant answered questions in a manner that demonstrated that he appreciated the consequences of his decision. For instance, “[h]e indicated that he understood several possible grounds for appeal, which had been explained to him by counsel, but informed the court that he was ‘not seeking any technicalities,’ ” and “[i]n a psychiatric interview, [the defendant in Whitmore] stated that he would consider it ‘a terrible miscarriage of justice for a person to kill people and not be executed.’ ” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 165-66, 110 S.Ct. 1717. Likewise, the defen*346dant in Harper “explicitly proclaimed that he seeks to end this litigation because he does not believe that he has any realistic chance of having his conviction overturned, and he does not want to live out his natural life in prison.” Harper, 177 F.3d at 570.
Furthermore, this case is unlike Demosthenes, where the state courts had previously determined that the defendant was competent to forego his rights just a week before the persons seeking “next friend” standing brought a petition for habeas corpus. In this case, there is no state court determination of West’s competency to waive his right to file a federal habeas corpus petition. There is only the state court’s determination in 1986 that West was competent to stand trial. In light of the evidence of West’s questionable mental state as presented by defense counsel, such determination is of little value, especially since it was reached more than fourteen years ago.
In sum, given West’s failure to explain his reasons for not proceeding to file a habeas petition and the evidence concerning West’s history of mental disorders, his vacillation with regard to his desire to live and to seek habeas relief, and alleged maltreatment of West by prison officials, I believe that defense counsel has demonstrated reasonable cause for the court to believe that West may be mentally incompetent and therefore cannot appear on his own behalf.
B.
Second, defense counsel has demonstrated that defense counsel is acting within the best interests of West, having previously represented West in his state post-conviction proceedings. In fact, Bell does not contest defense counsel’s ability to establish this factor.
Defense counsel therefore properly can act as West’s next friend in pursuing an investigation of West’s competence to decide whether to waive his right to file a federal habeas corpus petition. Although defense counsel claims not to seek “next friend” standing at this time, defense counsel’s arguments cannot be construed otherwise. Defense counsel is clearly acting as a next friend in asserting West’s interests in investigating and holding a hearing to determine the competency and voluntariness of West’s decisions.
II.
Furthermore, I conclude that defense counsel also has standing to assert West’s statutory right to a one-year period in which to file a federal habeas corpus petition. Section 2254 provides West with a statutory right to file a federal habeas corpus petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), West has one year from the date of entry of final judgment of his application for state post-conviction review in which to file a federal habeas corpus petition. West has never explicitly waived this right. Instead, he has refused to say anything. Absent a clear determination of voluntary waiver, further development of the record is needed to determine whether West indeed wishes to waive his right to file a federal habeas corpus petition and understands the full consequences of such action.
In this case, defense counsel presented evidence that suggests that West may not be competent. “[Ojnce [his] competence was put in issue, [West] could not waive his right to have his competence determined.” Harper, 177 F.3d at 571 (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)); Mata v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 324, 329-330 (5th Cir.2000) (“[W]e conclude that a habeas court must conduct an inquiry into a defendant’s mental capacity, either sua sponte or in response to a motion by petitioner’s counsel, if the evidence raises a bona fide doubt as to his competency.”). In other words, given West’s questionable mental state, only defense counsel can assert West’s statutory right to file a habeas petition. To deny defense counsel the opportunity *347to investigate West’s mental condition because of a lack of conclusive evidence regarding such condition would create a Catch-22 situation, in which an actually incompetent defendant, who has not yet been evaluated for his competency to fore-go further legal proceedings, could preclude a review of his ability to waive his legal rights intelligently and competently by simply declaring a desire not to seek federal habeas corpus relief. Completely unlike Harper, there has not yet been an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe West may be incompetent. As in Harper, West is entitled to a hearing on his competency before his purported decision to waive a federal habeas proceeding is deemed competent.
III.
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a stay because it had the authority to grant a stay to determine the propriety of its jurisdiction. A federal court has the power under the All Writs Act to issue injunctive orders in a case even before the court’s jurisdiction has been established. When potential jurisdiction exists, a federal court may issue orders preserving the status quo to ensure that once its jurisdiction is shown to exist, the court will be in a position to exercise it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to usages and principles of law.”). See, e.g., FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603-05, 86 S.Ct. 1738, 16 L.Ed.2d 802 (1966).
This circuit’s decision in Steffen v. Tate, 39 F.3d 622, 625 (6th Cir.1994), is inappo-site here. Unlike Steffen, this case concerns a stay of execution to allow for an investigation of a defendant’s competency, not to pursue allegedly “novel and newly available state remedies beyond a direct appeal and a post-conviction proceeding, both of which ... [had] already been enjoyed.” Steffen, 39 F.3d at 623. Indeed, this case is almost exactly parallel to Rees. In Rees, the defendant there “directed his counsel to withdraw his [federal habeas corpus] petition and forgo any further legal proceedings.” Rees, 384 U.S. at 313, 86 S.Ct. 1505. While noting that resolution of the defendant’s mental competence was of prime importance, the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over the case and “determined that, in aid of the proper exercise of [its] certiorari jurisdiction, the Federal District Court in which [the] proceeding commenced should upon due notice to the state and all other interested parties make a judicial determination as to Rees’ mental competence and render a report on the matter to us.” Id. at 31-14, 86 S.Ct. 1505. In light of the striking similarities between Rees and this case, I conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a stay of execution, as it had the authority to do so to permit the resolution of the mental competence of West. See also Felker v. Turpin, 517 U.S. 1182, 116 S.Ct. 1588, 134 L.Ed.2d 685 (1996) (Supreme Court granted temporary stay of execution to allow time to consider whether it had jurisdiction).
It is true that neither West nor his counsel has filed as yet a petition for federal habeas corpus. However, by filing a motion for appointment as counsel to assure that West’s mental competency to waive his federal habeas rights is investigated and evaluated, defense counsel have in effect triggered the protections of 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(4)(B). As explained by the Supreme Court in McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 129 L.Ed.2d 666 (1994), a federal habeas “ ‘post-conviction proceeding’ within the meaning of § 848(q)(4)(B) is commenced by the filing of a death row defendant’s motion requesting the appointment of counsel for his federal habeas corpus proceeding.” Id. at 856, 114 S.Ct. 2568. Where West’s competency is in question, defense counsel’s motion to be appointed as counsel to *348investigate West’s competency regarding the filing of a federal habeas petition is similarly within the scope of § 848(q)(4)(B) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in McFarland. And, as in McFarland, only if the stay of West’s execution is continued can West’s rights to a counseled habeas corpus petition under § 848(q)(4)(B) be protected.
IV.
In sum, I conclude that the district court’s decision to grant a stay of execution until June 15, 2001 did not constitute an abuse of discretion. To determine otherwise would create an avenue by which incompetent defendants may waive then-rights to federal habeas relief without a judicial determination of whether such waiver was knowing, intelligent, competent, and voluntary. Moreover, the district court granted a limited stay only, giving defense counsel until June 15, 2001 to investigate West’s competence, a date which in essence is coterminous with the date upon which West’s one-year period for filing a federal habeas corpus petition will expire.
Bell attempts to argue that the State will be significantly harmed by our upholding the stay of execution. Such arguments, however, are exaggerated. As noted above, the stay granted to defense counsel was short, providing counsel with only three months in which to conduct an investigation. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that the State will be unduly prejudiced by a three-month stay for an investigation of West’s competency to waive any federal habeas proceeding, after the state court proceedings have taken fourteen years to conclude. For the reasons stated above, I would affirm the district court’s decision to stay West’s execution so that his competency to waive federal habeas relief may be investigated.