Dennis v. Ayers
Filing
372
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO BE PRESENT AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 4/15/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
12
WILLIAM MICHAEL DENNIS,
13
Petitioner,
14
15
16
17
v.
Case No. 5:98-cv-21027-JF
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST TO BE PRESENT AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,
Respondent.
18
19
On June 24, 2010, the Court bifurcated the evidentiary hearing in this case in order to
20
address the mental health claims asserted by Petitioner William Michael Dennis (“Dennis”) before
21
addressing Dennis’s other claims. See Order Bifurcating Evidentiary Hearing, ECF No. 254. The
22
Court limited the mental health phase of the evidentiary hearing to testimony of medical and legal
23
professionals. Id. On August 15, 2013, the Court set the mental health phase of the evidentiary
24
hearing for April 21, 2014 through April 25, 2014. See Corrected Clerk’s Notice, ECF No. 296.
25
Since August 2013, the parties have undertaken significant preparation for the evidentiary hearing
26
and have litigated some aspects of the hearing, including Dennis’s request to depose Respondent’s
27
expert prior to the hearing.
28
On April 11, 2014, Dennis’s counsel, Mr. Thomson, notified chambers staff and
Case No. 5:98-cv-21027-JF
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO BE PRESENT AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
1
Respondent’s counsel, Mr. Matthias, via email that Dennis requests to be present at the evidentiary
2
hearing. This email notification was the first time that Mr. Thomson had communicated Dennis’s
3
request to either the Court or Mr. Matthias. Mr. Thomson initially took the position that Petitioner’s
4
presence is required, but then in a subsequent email to chambers staff and to Mr. Matthias, Mr.
5
Thomson conceded that the Court has discretion whether to order Dennis’s presence. Mr. Thomson
6
asserts that Dennis would be able to assist him during the evidentiary hearing because Dennis has
7
been examined by many of the experts who will testify at the hearing.
8
“[A] petitioner does not have an automatic right to be present at a hearing in which he is
9
collaterally attacking his criminal conviction.” Wade v. Calderon, 29 F.3d 1312, 1325 (9th Cir.
1994) (citing Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495 (1962)), overruled on other grounds,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Rohan ex. rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 815 (9th Cir. 2003). In Wade, the Court of
12
Appeals concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in declining to order a state
13
prisoner’s presence at an evidentiary hearing on the prisoner’s federal habeas petition. Id. The
14
Court of Appeals noted that the prisoner was not expected to testify at the evidentiary hearing and
15
had not made a showing that he could offer any relevant evidence at the hearing. Id. at 1326.
16
Dennis will not be testifying at the evidentiary hearing in the present case. Moreover,
17
despite Mr. Thomson’s assertion that Dennis would be able to assist him at the hearing, it is unclear
18
how Dennis could assist Mr. Thomson in assessing testimony given by medical and legal
19
professionals on the subject of Dennis’s mental health. Under these circumstances, and in light of
20
the difficulty in arranging for the last-minute transportation, housing, and security with respect to a
21
death row inmate, Dennis’s request to be present at the evidentiary hearing is DENIED.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
DATED: April 15, 2014
_________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:98-cv-21027-JF
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO BE PRESENT AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?