Stanley v. Ayers
Filing
65
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 63 re Respondent's Discovery in Connection with Competency Determination filed by Kevin Chappell. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/1/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
GLENN R. PRUDEN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MICHELE J. SWANSON
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 191193
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5703
Fax: (415) 703-1234
E-mail: Michele.Swanson@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondent
ROGER I. TEICH
State Bar No. 147076
290 Nevada Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Telephone: (415) 948-0045
E-mail: rteich@juno.com
11
12
13
14
DAVID A. NICKERSON
State Bar No. 111885
32 Bridgegate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Telephone: (415) 507-9097
E-mail: nickersonlaw@comcast.net
Attorneys for Petitioner
15
16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
19
20
21
DARREN CORNELIUS STANLEY,
22
23
C 07-4727 EMC
Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE
v.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE RESPONDENT’S
DISCOVERY IN CONNECTION WITH
COMPETENCY DETERMINATION
24
25
26
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Acting Warden,
California State Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.
27
28
1
Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Resp’t’s Discovery in Connection with Competency Determination (C 07-4727 EMC)
1
On April 23, 2012, this Court granted petitioner’s motion to determine competency. On
2
May 8 and 15, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement and replies addressing
3
the structure and schedule for the Court’s determination of petitioner’s present competency to
4
assist counsel and participate in these capital habeas corpus proceedings. The Court has not yet
5
issued an order setting forth the structure and schedule for the competency determination.
6
Subject to approval by this Court, the parties hereby agree and stipulate to the following:
7
1) Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, there is good cause for
8
respondent’s request for production of the following documents from petitioner under Rule 34 of
9
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent petitioner’s counsel have such documents in
10
their possession as of the date of the entry of the Order on this Stipulation:
11
a) petitioner’s birth and pediatric medical and mental health records;
12
b) petitioner’s school records (elementary, middle, and high schools);
13
c) petitioner’s juvenile hall and California Youth Authority (CYA) records
14
(including disciplinary, medical, mental health, education, and work);
15
d) petitioner’s jail records (medical/mental health only) from the period when he was
16
incarcerated during the pretrial, trial, and sentencing stages of this case;
17
e) the "medical document" of petitioner's maternal grandfather, Isaac Hayes, who
18
was diagnosed with psychosis due to epilepsy, and which was relied upon by Dr.
19
Benson in his state habeas declaration (see paragraph 3(e) of declaration); and,
20
f) all mental health records of petitioner’s family members in petitioner’s possession,
21
whether or not provided to Dr. Gregory or Dr. Hines.
22
2) Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, there is good cause for
23
respondent to issue third-party subpoenas for the following documents under Rule 45 of the
24
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
25
a) petitioner’s juvenile hall and California Youth Authority (CYA) records
26
(including disciplinary, medical, mental health, education, and work); and,
27
b) petitioner’s jail records (medical/mental health only) from the period when he was
28
incarcerated during the pretrial, trial, and sentencing stages of this case.
2
Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Resp’t’s Discovery in Connection with Competency Determination (C 07-4727 EMC)
1
2
3) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will apply to respondent's request for production
of documents and issuance of subpoenas.
3
4
4) Petitioner will produce the above requested documents and/or issue objections within 30
days of the Court's order on this stipulation;
5
5) Respondent’s third-party subpoenas will issue within 7 days of the Court's order on this
6
stipulation and will command production of responsive documents within 30 days of issuance of
7
the subpoena. Within 7 days of respondent’s receipt of responsive documents, respondent will
8
provide copies of the documents to petitioner at petitioner's expense. Petitioner will rely upon the
9
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief if any third party fails to comply in a timely manner.
10
6) Documents produced in response to respondent's discovery request and subpoenas will
11
be covered by any protective order issued by the Court in connection with the competency
12
determination.
13
7) Petitioner reserves the right to object to the admission of any of the documents obtained
14
pursuant to this Stipulation on the grounds that such documents are irrelevant or inconsequential
15
to the determination of Petitioner’s present competency to meaningfully assist counsel or
16
participate in these habeas corpus proceedings. Petitioner reserves the right the object on these
17
same grounds to any expert opinions based upon any documents obtained pursuant to this
18
Stipulation, or upon the non-existence or unavailability of responsive documents.
19
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
20
Dated: July 27, 2012
By: /s/ Michele J. Swanson________
GLENN R. PRUDEN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MICHELE J. SWANSON
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Respondent
Dated: July 27, 2012
21
By: /s/ Roger I. Teich_____________
ROGER I. TEICH
DAVID A. NICKERSON
Attorneys for Petitioner
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
///
///
3
Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Resp’t’s Discovery in Connection with Competency Determination (C 07-4727 EMC)
S
RT
6
ER
H
5
SF2007402979
20628224.doc
R NIA
NO
4
_____________________________
HONORABLE EDWARD M.n HEN
C
he
United States ard M. CJudge
wDistrict
d
Judge E
FO
8/1/12
Dated: ____________
A
3
ERED
O ORD
IT IS S
LI
2
UNIT
ED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RT
U
O
1
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stip. and [Proposed] Order re Resp’t’s Discovery in Connection with Competency Determination (C 07-4727 EMC)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case Name:
Stanley v. Chappell, Acting
Warden
No.
C 07-4727 EMC
I hereby certify that on July 30, 2012, I electronically filed the following documents with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY IN
CONNECTION WITH COMPETENCY DETERMINATION
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 30, 2012, at San Francisco, California.
D. Desuyo
Declarant
20628426.doc
/s/ D. Desuyo
Signature
]]>
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?
