Huggins v. Martel

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 40 Respondent's Motion to Vacate the Stay. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
MICHAEL JAMES HUGGINS,

12
13
14

No. C 06-07254 YGR

Petitioner,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER RE MOTION TO VACATE STAY

v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,
Respondent.

15
/
16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Michael James Huggins is a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison. On

19
September 27, 2012, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to stay these proceedings pending a
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

competency determination. On January 10, 2013, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
continue the competency determination pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Ryan v. Gonzales, No. 10-930, cert. granted 132 S. Ct. 1738 (2012). On January 8, 2013, the
Supreme Court issued a decision, Ryan v. Gonzales, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 696. Based on Ryan,
Respondent now moves to vacate the stay; Petitioner opposes the motion.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-1(b) and 7-6, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate

27

for submission on the papers without oral argument. Having considered the parties' filings, the

28

Court DENIES Respondent's motion to vacate the stay.

1

DISCUSSION

2

The Court's earlier decision staying the case pending a competency determination was based

3

on Petitioner's showing that his competency was at issue, including a psychiatrist report diagnosing

4
5
6
7

Petitioner with several mental health conditions, and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rohan ex. rel
Gates v. Woodford ("Gates"), 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). Gates held that a capital prisoner
"has a statutory right to competence in his federal habeas proceedings. . . ." Id. at 817. In addition,
Gates authorized indefinite stays, until an incompetent petitioner regained competency. Id. at 819;

8
see also Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1152, 1154 (9th Cir. 2011).
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

On January 8, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Ryan v. Gonzales, abrogating Gates and
holding that an incompetent capital prisoner has no right to an indefinite stay of habeas proceedings.
133 S. Ct. 696, 706-709. The Court further held that while the decision to grant a temporary stay is
within the discretion of the district court, an indefinite stay is inappropriate if there is no reasonable
hope the petitioner will regain competence in the foreseeable future. Id.
Respondent argues that, pursuant to Ryan, the stay in this case should be lifted. He maintains

16

that, even though Petitioner's competency has not been determined, Petitioner cannot demonstrate

17

that he could reasonably provide any substantial assistance to his counsel on any of his anticipated

18

federal habeas claims, thus rendering the question of Petitioner's competence irrelevant to these

19

proceedings.

20

Respondent is incorrect, and his motion to vacate the stay is premature. The Court has

21

already stated that there are claims that could benefit from Petitioner's assistance. See Order Re

22

Motion for Competency Determination and Stay of Habeas Proceedings, filed September 27, 2012.

23

Moreover, the stay currently in place is not the indefinite stay of an incompetent prisoner disallowed

24

by Ryan. Rather, it is a temporary stay pending a determination of Petitioner's competency.

25

Petitioner has alleged, and the Court has found, that: 1) Petitioner has made an adequate showing of

26

incompetency, such that a determination of his competence is warranted; and 2) there are claims that

27

could benefit from Petitioner's assistance. As the Court made clear in its earlier Order, the Court is

28

not finding at this juncture that Petitioner is actually incompetent.
Accordingly, the Court has determined that the proper course at this juncture is to allow the
2

1
2

current stay to remain pending a determination of whether Petitioner is actually incompetent. The

3

Ryan Court made clear that while indefinite stays were not permitted, district courts did not need

4
5
6
7

"unsolicited advice from [the Supreme Court] on how to manage their dockets" and that the decision
to grant a stay is "'generally left to the sound discretion of district courts.'" 133 S. Ct. at 708 (citing
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007)). If Petitioner is competent, the stay will be lifted
and the case will proceed. If Petitioner is incompetent, it will remain to be determined whether his

8
competency is restorable. If so, pursuant to Ryan, a temporary stay of proceedings pending the
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

restoration of competency is permissible. See 133 S. Ct. 696, 706-709. The Court also notes that in
at least one other capital habeas case in this District, Stanley v. Chappell, 07-4727 (EMC), a stay
pending a competency determination has remained in place even after the Ryan decision.
Respondent's motion is therefore DENIED.
CONCLUSION

14
15

For the foregoing reasons,

16

1.

Respondent's motion to vacate the stay is DENIED.

17

2.

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and, within sixty (60) days of the date

18

of this Order, the parties shall file a joint case management statement proposing a schedule and

19

procedures for determination of Petitioner's competency.

20

3.

Petitioner's counsel is ORDERED to be mindful of the fact that, once the stay is

21

lifted, the Amended Petition will have to be filed. Accordingly, Petitioner's counsel should proceed

22

diligently on preparation of the Amended Petition as well as on the issues surrounding Petitioner's

23

competency.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

3