Stanley v. Ayers

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 34 Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Reconsideration of Discovery Order; and Granting 35 Petitioner's Motion to File Motion and Declaration of Counsel Under Seal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

Darren Cornelius STANLEY,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16

No. C07-4727 EMC
DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER RESOLVING PENDING
MOTIONS

v.
Michael MARTEL, Acting Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,

[Docs. Nos. 34 & 35]

Respondent.

17
I

18
19

Petitioner, a condemned state prisoner, has filed a Motion to File Motion and Declaration

20

of Counsel Under Seal. (Doc. No. 35.) In that motion, Petitioner seeks leave to file under seal

21

an Ex Parte Motion to Stay Proceedings and for Equitable Tolling Pending Determination of

22

Petitioner’s Competency and an accompanying declaration.

23

The statements in the documents Petitioner seeks to file under seal are largely privileged

24

attorney-client communications, protected attorney work-product, and confidential information

25

and communications regarding the budgeting of the present action. Such statements are

26

appropriately filed under seal, and the Court grants the motion to do so.

27
28

However, Respondent’s contention that Petitioner’s request is not narrowly tailored as
required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) is well taken. (Doc. No. 36 at 2–3.) Accordingly,
Case No. 3-7-cv-4727-EMC
ORDER RESOLVING PENDING MOTIONS
(DPSAGOK)

1

Petitioner shall file the motion and the declaration in the public record with the privileged and

2

protected statements redacted.

3

II

4

Petitioner has filed under seal an Ex Parte Motion to Stay Proceedings and for Equitable

5

Tolling Pending Determination of Petitioner’s Competency. Petitioner seeks equitable tolling of

6

the federal habeas statute of limitations nunc pro tunc to October 6, 2011, when Petitioner

7

submitted to the Court a budget request for funding to prepare his finalized petition.

8
9

A condemned prisoner “has a statutory right to competence in his federal habeas
proceedings. . . .” Rohan v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). The “relevant

10

question” to determine competence in the federal habeas context is “whether [the petitioner] now

11

has the capacity to understand his position and to communicate rationally with counsel.” Id. at

12

819. “[W]here an incompetent capital habeas petitioner raises claims that could benefit from his

13

ability to communicate rationally, refusing to stay proceedings pending restoration of

14

competence denies him his statutory right to assistance of counsel, whether or not counsel can

15

identify with precision the information sought.” Id. In such a situation, federal habeas

16

proceedings “must be stayed until [the petitioner] is competent.” Id.

17

In the present action, as in Rohan, Petitioner has raised “claims that could benefit from

18

his ability to communicate rationally,” id., such as claims that his trial counsel rendered

19

ineffective assistance, (Doc. No. 5-1 at 93–100; Doc. No. 5-2 at 1–2 (claim 7); Doc. No. 5-3 at

20

11–21 (claim 25); id. at 77–89 (claims 34–38); id. at 95–101; Doc. No. 5-4 at 1–17 (claims

21

40–44); id. at 39–55 (claims 48–53); id. at 73–75 (claim 58)). See Rohan, 334 F.3d at 818. In

22

addition, Petitioner’s counsel have submitted a declaration containing substantial evidence that

23

indicates that Petitioner may lack “the capacity to understand his position and to communicate

24

rationally with counsel.” Id. at 819. Accordingly, Petitioner “is entitled to a stay pending a

25

competency determination.” In re Gonzales, 653 F.3d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court

26

therefore grants such a stay, including equitable tolling, nunc pro tunc to October 6, 2011.

27
28

III
The Court previously issued its Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery. (Doc.
2
Case No. 3-7-cv-4727-EMC
ORDER RESOLVING PENDING MOTIONS
(DPSAGOK)

1

No. 33.) Respondent has filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of

2

Discovery Order. (Doc. No. 34.) As indicated above, the Court is staying proceedings pending

3

a determination of Petitioner’s competence. Such proceedings necessarily include discovery

4

(other than that granted for preservation purposes). The Court therefore denies Respondent’s

5

motion without prejudice. Respondent may renew his motion in the event that Petitioner is

6

found competent and the stay pending a competency determination is lifted.

7

*

8
9

*

Good cause appearing therefor,
(1)

10
11

*

Petitioner’s Motion to File Motion and Declaration of Counsel Under Seal, (Doc. No.
35), is granted;

(2)

Petitioner shall file his Motion to File Motion and Declaration of Counsel Under Seal and

12

the accompanying declaration in the public record with privileged and protected

13

statements redacted;

14

(3)

15
16

Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion to Stay Proceedings and for Equitable Tolling Pending
Determination of Petitioner’s Competency is granted;

(4)

Equitable tolling of the federal habeas statute of limitations is granted nunc pro tunc to

17

October 6, 2011; Petitioner shall not file his finalized petition pending further order of

18

the Court;

19

(5)

The parties shall meet and confer and, within forty-five days after the present order is

20

filed, shall file a joint case-management statement that includes a proposed schedule for

21

determining Petitioner’s competence; and

22

(6)

Respondent’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Discovery Order,

23

(Doc. No. 34), is denied without prejudice.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

DATED: November 28, 2011

__________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28
3
Case No. 3-7-cv-4727-EMC
ORDER RESOLVING PENDING MOTIONS
(DPSAGOK)