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

Filing 740

ORDER RE COMPETENCY PROCEDURES re 736 Letter Brief filed by Oscar Gates, 735 Statement filed by Kevin Chappell, 737 Declaration in Support filed by Oscar Gates, 733 Order. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/5/14. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2014)

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

7
8
9

No. C 88-2779 WHA

OSCAR GATES,
10

ORDER

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Petitioner,
11
12
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
13
Respondent.
/

14
15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

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

18

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

19

time, attorneys for petitioner and respondent agreed that petitioner was incompetent.2 On

20

January 8, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Ryan v. Gonzales, abrogating Gates and holding

21

that an incompetent capital prisoner has no right to an indefinite stay of habeas proceedings.

22

133 S. Ct. 696, 706-709. The Supreme Court further held that while the decision to grant a

23

temporary stay is within the discretion of the district court, an indefinite stay is inappropriate if

24

there is no reasonable hope the petitioner will regain competence in the foreseeable future. Id.

25

The stay in this matter was subsequently lifted, and the parties commenced briefing on

26
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.
2

Dr. Joseph Satten, who conducted the 2004 examination, is now deceased.

1

the merits and settlement proceedings. In addition, the Court ordered the parties to meet and

2

confer, and to present a joint plan for further examination of petitioner Gates. The parties were

3

unable to submit a joint plan, though they did find some areas of agreement. In addition, the

4

parties were unable to agree on a mental health professional; instead, both parties submitted

5

three potential experts to be considered by the Court for appointment.

6

The Court has reviewed all of the pleadings submitted by the parties regarding this

7

issue, as well as relevant documents in the voluminous record of this case, and hereby enters the

8

following Order.

9
I.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

DISCUSSION

12

Legal Standard
This Court has the authority to order a competency determination of Gates pursuant to

Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads in pertinent part:

13

The court where the action is pending may order a party whose mental or
physical condition – including blood group – is in controversy to submit to a
physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. The
court has the same authority to order a party to produce for examination a person
who is in its custody or under its legal control.

14
15
16

Because Gates was previously adjudicated incompetent, and because his competency or lack

17

thereof is potentially relevant to his habeas case, his present mental state is "in controversy"

18

within the meaning of Rule 35. See Schlaugenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118 (1966)

19

(discussing good cause and in controversy requirements of Rule 35(a)).

20

II.

21

Analysis
Despite this Court’s repeated requests for the parties to submit a joint proposal, the

22

parties have been unable to do so. In an effort to move forward promptly with an evaluation of

23

petitioner, the Court ordered petitioner and respondent in December 2013 to submit a joint plan

24

for further examination of petitioner Gates. See Docket # 660. As of yet, the parties have not

25

been able to submit a joint plan nor to agree upon an expert. The Court finds and concludes that

26

examination of petitioner, in a timely and fair manner, must be prioritized in order to move

27

forward with this matter. The results will be important for both petitioner and respondent.

28

Additionally, Rule 35 firmly places the final decision-making regarding a mental examination,
2

1

including the appointment of an expert, within the discretion of the district court, and in the

2

absence of a joint agreement from the parties, the Court makes the following determinations

3

regarding examination of petitioner Gates.

4

III.

5
6
7

Procedures
The Court will now detail the required procedures. It is imperative that the current

status of petitioner’s competency be determined as soon as possible.
1.

Pursuant to Rule 35, the Court hereby appoints Dr. Jessica Ferranti as the

8

examiner of petitioner Gates. The Court finds and concludes that Dr. Ferranti, who has

9

experience both in forensic analysis and clinical restoration to competency procedures, is
suitably licenced and qualified to serve as a Court-appointed expert in this matter. The Court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

emphasizes that Dr. Ferranti is to be retained by the Court as an independent expert, and not as

12

a representative of either party.

13

2.

The Court also finds and concludes that the initial exam conducted should be

14

focused on determining petitioner Gates’ competency, as well as his current symptomology,

15

details of any diagnosed illnesses, and his possible amenability to various treatment modes.

16

The exam should not “assume” petitioner’s incompetency, because it would not be appropriate

17

for this Court to authorize moving forward with a treatment plan for an incarcerated petitioner

18

based on a ten-year old examination from a professional who is no longer available to testify.

19

Rather, the Court finds and concludes that petitioner Gates’ current needs will be best served

20

when they are based on a recent evaluation from a qualified expert.

21

3.

The Court also finds and concludes that, per the parties’ agreement, any

22

examination of petitioner Gates and any restoration proceedings resulting therefrom should

23

occur in the intermediate care facility located in the Central Health Services Building, the

24

Outpatient Housing Unit (or “OHU”), in San Quentin. Petitioner’s counsel shall be notified of

25

the transfer to the OHU no less than 48 hours before the transfer is scheduled to take place.

26

Respondent’s counsel and/or counsel for CDCR should ensure that petitioner’s counsel or his

27

next friend, Colleen Rohan, will have an opportunity to meet with petitioner after notification

28

and before transfer.
3

1

4.

The examination by Dr. Ferranti should take place from June 23-24, 2014. No

2

later than seven days prior to the examination, each side should provide Dr. Ferranti with

3

evidence it deems relevant to her examination.

4

5.

Petitioner will not be medicated involuntarily absent an order of the Court.

5

6.

No one examining petitioner Gates for the purposes of determining his

6

competency in these proceedings will ask him about the crimes underlying the conviction and

7

sentence in this case.

8

7.

Dr. Ferranti may observe, contact, interview and examine petitioner at San

with CDCR staff, and review any material they provide that is relevant to her examination of

11
For the Northern District of California

Quentin to the full extent allowed by CDCR staff. In addition, she may contact and consult

10

United States District Court

9

petitioner Gates.

12

8.

13
14

Petitioner’s counsel may observe, contact and interview petitioner at San

Quentin to the full extent allowed by CDCR staff.
9.

Dr. Ferranti’s report shall be submitted to this Court and shall: summarize the

15

purpose and procedure of the examinations conducted; list any materials considered in

16

conducting the evaluation; document petitioner’s behavior, statements and condition during the

17

examination; state the clinical basis for any diagnosis; state the diagnosis; and answer the

18

questions posed by the Court (see infra).

19

10.

Dr. Ferranti should consider petitioner’s competency in accordance with the

20

following standard: Whether petitioner Gates has the capacity to appreciate his position and

21

make rational choices with respect to proceedings in this Court or, on the other hand, whether

22

he is suffering from a mental disease, disorder or defect that may substantially affect his

23

capacity. In addition, Dr. Ferranti should consider whether Gates currently has the capacity to

24

understand his position and communicate rationally with counsel regarding this matter.

25

11.

No later than August 4, 2014, Dr. Ferranti should submit a report regarding her

26

evaluation of petitioner Gates to the Court. If Dr. Ferranti concludes that petitioner Gates is

27

incompetent under the standard discussed supra, her report should also include whether

28

petitioner’s competency may be restored. In addition, her report should include a proposed plan
4

1
2

for competency restoration, including the length of time anticipated for restoration.
12.

No later than August 25, 2014, each party shall file submissions on the issue of

3

competency and, if relevant, competency restoration. Replies shall be filed no later than

4

September 1, 2014.

5

13.

6

If necessary, the Court shall schedule a hearing on this issue after review of the

submissions of Dr. Ferranti and the parties.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: June

5

, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5