Colleen Mary Rohan, et al v. Jill Brown, et al

Filing 592

ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 5/6/2013. Case Management Conference set for 5/16/2013 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/2/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

No. C 88-2779 WHA
ORDER RE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

Petitioner,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

OSCAR GATES,
11
12
v.
13
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
14
Respondent.
/

15
16

This matter was stayed in 2004 following an adjudication of mental incompetency,
17

based on Rohan ex. rel. Gates v. Woodford ("Gates"), 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003).1 At that

18
time, attorneys for petitioner and respondent agreed that petitioner was incompetent. On
19
January 8, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Ryan v. Gonzales, abrogating Gates and holding
20
that an incompetent capital prisoner has no right to an indefinite stay of habeas proceedings.
21
133 S. Ct. 696, 706-709. The Supreme Court further held that while the decision to grant a
22
temporary stay is within the discretion of the district court, an indefinite stay is inappropriate if
23
there is no reasonable hope the petitioner will regain competence in the foreseeable future. Id.
24
Pursuant to Ryan, this Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding whether
25
the stay in this matter should be lifted. Petitioner maintains that the stay should be continued
26
for a finite amount of time in order for the parties to address whether petitioner can be returned
27
28
1

Petitioner was also adjudicated to be mentally incompetent in 1994, as part of the proceedings in this
habeas matter, and in 1973, in a prior state criminal matter.

1

to competency. Respondent counters that, without a proffer as to petitioner's amenability to

2

treatment and potential for restoration to competency, the stay ought to be lifted immediately

3

and the proceedings recommenced.

4

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to

5

appear on May 16, 2013 at 11:00 am for a Case Management Conference regarding subsequent

6

proceedings in this matter. In addition to the issues noted above, the parties should be prepared

7

to discuss, inter alia, whether another next friend should be appointed in this matter, and

8

whether this matter should be referred for settlement discussions. See, e.g., McPeters v.

9

Chappell, 2013 WL 360260, *7 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2013).
The parties are also ORDERED to submit a joint case management statement,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

addressing any of the above-mentioned issues not covered by the already-submitted pleadings,

12

no later than ten days prior to the CMC.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: April

2

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2