Espinoza v. Ornoski

Filing 325

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/18/2023 regarding petitioner's counsel's 320 motion to determine incompetency and appoint a guardian ad litem. With respect to Ms. Gardner's arguments regarding the merits of her motion, they are unnecessary and premature. The court will issue an order formally setting the hearing shortly. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO ESPINOZA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:94-cv-1665 KJM DB

v.

ORDER

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of

17
18

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. In an order filed September 21, 2023, this court

19

considered the appropriate procedures for resolving petitioner’s counsel’s motion to determine

20

incompetency and appoint a guardian ad litem. (ECF No. 320.) Citing Chief Judge Mueller’s

21

opinion in AT & T Mobility LLC v. Yeager, No. 2:13-CV-0007-KJM-DAD, 2015 WL 4751185,

22

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015), this court found that “notice and a hearing are the minimum [due

23

process] required” in determining a party’s competency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24

17.

25

This court determined that the first step for considering counsel’s motion is a hearing to

26

permit the undersigned to question petitioner about his understanding of the motion. As made

27

clear in the September 21 order, the purpose of this hearing is only to provide petitioner with

28

notice and to ask whether he consents to the appointment of a guardian ad litem. This hearing is
1

1

not intended to provide the court with information to resolve the question of petitioner’s

2

competency. In the order, this court also discussed the steps that may follow the notice hearing:

3

holding a hearing to take evidence; appointing an expert to examine petitioner; and appointing

4

counsel for petitioner for purposes of counsel’s motion.

5

Following issuance of the September 21 order, Ms. Gardner, petitioner’s counsel, filed

6

two documents. The first, entitled “Petitioner’s Third Supplemental Authorities,” sets out

7

standards for determining competency, argues, again, that petitioner is not competent, and seeks

8

appointment of an expert to examine petitioner before the court holds any sort of hearing.

9

Counsel has not moved for reconsideration of the September 21 order. Therefore it remains in

10

effect. And, in any event, this court does not find an expert evaluation necessary before the court

11

simply provides petitioner notice of his counsel’s motion. With respect to Ms. Gardner’s

12

arguments regarding the merits of her motion, they are unnecessary and premature. Ms. Gardner

13

has already submitted briefing in support of her motion. If the court finds further briefing would

14

be helpful, it will order it.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Ms. Gardner’s second filing proposes questions for this court to ask petitioner during the
notice hearing. This court will consider and use those suggested questions as appropriate.
Court staff continues to finalize a date for the notice hearing. The court will issue an
order formally setting the hearing shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2023

21
22
23
24
25

DB:9/DB prisoner inbox/capital/Espinoza.comp notice hrg(2)

26
27
28
2