Bell v. Vasquez, et al

Filing 222

ORDER Referring Case to Magistrate. Case is Referred to Magistrate Judge Beeler for a Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/18/14. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

Ronald Lee BELL, JR.,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

Case No. C99-20615

v.

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO
MAGISTRATE

Kevin CHAPPELL,
Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.

15
16

On November 14, 2013, the parties filed a joint statement proposing various ways this

17

case should proceed in light of petitioner’s medical condition. (ECF Doc. No. 221) Petitioner

18

suffers from dementia, as well as other physical ailments. (ECF Doc. No. 218) The parties agree

19

that he is currently incompetent, that his condition will not likely improve in the future, and that

20

he may also be incompetent to be executed within the meaning of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 US.

21

399 (1986). (ECF Doc. No. 221 at 2, 4). The parties disagree however, as to how the case

22

should proceed. Petitioner suggests that the Court refer this case to a magistrate judge for

23

settlement purposes, or alternately, stay proceedings and direct petitioner to submit annual

24

reports on his medical condition. Id. at 2. Respondent asserts that a stay is inappropriate under

25

Ryan v. Gonzalez, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013), and that the case should instead “proceed to decision.”

26

Id. at 4. Respondent further rejects petitioner’s suggestion that proceedings be referred to a

27

magistrate judge for settlement, noting that petitioner could not knowingly enter into “deal” with

28

the State if he is truly incompetent, and that the State, in turn, does not have authority to agree to
a modification of an affirmed judgment. Id. at 5-6.

1

The Court agrees that the grant of a stay is precluded by Gonzalez, 133 S. Ct. at 708-09

2

(stay is inappropriate where there is no hope that a petitioner might regain competence.)

3

Nonetheless, the Court finds that litigating this case in light of petitioner’s condition would

4

constitute an unnecessary waste of resources. Accordingly, the Court refers the case to

5

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for a settlement conference. Other courts in this District have

6

taken the same approach when faced with incompetent prisoners. See, e.g., Gates v. Chappell,

7

No. 88-2779 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2013); Stanley v. Chappell, No. C07-4727 EMC (N.D.

8

Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) The Court strongly urges both parties to participate in good faith.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

DATED: __________________

__________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BELL,

Case Number: CV99-20615 RMW
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
CHAPPELL,
Defendant.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on February 18, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
California Appellate Project
California Appellate Project
Federal Court Docketing
101 Second Street
Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Roger William Hurt
Attorney at Law
PO Box 98
Stinson Beach, CA 94970
Ronald L. Bell CDCR# C02401
CSP-Tamal
CA State Prison-San Quentin
Tamal, CA 94974

Dated: February 18, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk