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

Filing 663

ORDER re 662 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Oscar Gates. Signed by Judge William H. Alsup on 1/9/2014. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2014: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

OSCAR GATES,
Petitioner,

13
14

No. C 88-2779 WHA

v.

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER

15

KEVIN CHAPPELL,

16

Warden of San Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.

17
18
19

Petitioner is a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison. Although he is
20
represented by counsel, petitioner has recently filed a motion in propria persona and without the
21
assistance of counsel. See Docket #662, filed January 2, 2014. In this motion, petitioner objects
22
to any transfer for a psychiatric evaluation, and also moves to disqualify his counsel and
23
represent himself in these habeas proceedings.
24
Per an Order filed December 20, 2013, this Court denied without prejudice the motion for
25
transfer and restoration filed by petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly, petitioner’s opposition to
26
transfer is currently moot.
27
The Court also DENIES petitioner’s motion to disqualify counsel and proceed in propria
28
persona. The right to self-representation does not extend to post-conviction proceedings.
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.

1

3d 895, 901-902 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court, exercising its discretion, finds that self-

2

representation would not be in petitioner’s best interests. Petitioner is currently represented by

3

experienced counsel with the advantage of skill, training and ability. Procedural rules would not

4

be relaxed if petitioner represented himself, and no assistance can be rendered by the Court.

5

Self-representation is often unwise, and considering the complexity of capital habeas litigation,

6

and the fact that petitioner has been adjudicated incompetent, would likely be detrimental to

7

petitioner.

8
9
10

Additionally, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, counsel for petitioner is
ORDERED to meet with petitioner, and subsequently file a response to the allegations made in
petitioner’s pro se motion. The Clerk of Court shall terminate all pending motions.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: January 9, 2014

_________________________________

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2