An Unrepresented Prisoner Is Entitled to a Competency Hearing When Seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus When There Is Sufficient Evidence to Suggest Incompetence
In Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the district court had erred in not considering evidence of a prisoner's incompetence before dismissing the prisoner's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Facts of the Case
Ernest Lee Allen, a prisoner in Corcoran State Prison in California, filed a federal habeas corpus petition claiming that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The circumstances regarding his conviction were not considered by the Ninth Circuit and were not described in the opinion. The petition was unsigned by Mr. Allen. The district court issued an order requiring Mr. Allen to submit an amendment within 30 days that was to include his signature. After two weeks, Mr. Allen filed an amended petition that contained a photocopy, rather than an original, of his signature. He also added two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court issued an order, again demanding Mr. Allen's signature. The district court also ordered Mr. Allen to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust the new claims.
A month later, Mr. Allen filed a motion for extension of time to show cause based on his claim that he did not have adequate access to the courts, was mentally impaired, and did not know how to respond to the order. In the motion were his sworn declaration and that of a fellow inmate, both of whom stated that Mr. Allen was mentally ill and did not understand the court's orders. Also included was a letter from Mr. Allen's treating psychiatrist in prison that stated that Mr. Allen had received a diagnosis of Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia and was taking two psychotropic medications.
The district court allowed for an extension of time, but Mr. Allen was unable to respond. The district court issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Approximately two weeks later, Mr. Allen filed a motion for appointment of counsel stating: [Allen has a]…debilitating mental illness that requires a course of treatment that includes the use of various psychotropic medications. His mental condition and the side‐effects associated with the prescribed medications severely [hinder] his ability to comprehend or correctly respond to the determinations and Orders made by the Court.
The district court denied the motion.
Mr. Allen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation stating the court was in error when it failed to consider his mental illness and limited access to a law library. However, the district court dismissed Mr. Allen's petition. Mr. Allen then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.
Ruling
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Mr. Allen's petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded the case for further fact finding. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit stated that the district court “should conduct a competency hearing to determine whether Mr. Allen is competent under an appropriate standard for habeas petitioners.”
Reasoning
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court “abused its discretion in dismissing the petition” without first holding a competency hearing, by indicating that the lower court had sufficient evidence regarding the question of Mr. Allen's competence. Although Mr. Allen did not “artfully” present evidence of his incompetence and did not directly seek a competency hearing, because he represented himself, “the district court must construe pro se habeas filings liberally.” Since Mr. Allen's allegations regarding his mental illness went unrebutted, the district court was required to consider them as true in its decision to dismiss the petition. The Ninth Circuit rejected the State's claim that the district court may have considered the evidence insufficient since there was no reasoning provided in the district court's dismissal of the petition.
The Ninth Circuit applied to habeas petitioners Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that courts are required to “appoint a guardian ad litem for an…incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the incompetent.” The Ninth Circuit also referred to an earlier ruling, Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1989), in which it reasoned that when the mental competence of an unrepresented party in a non‐habeas civil action is in question, the district court should conduct a competency hearing and appoint a guardian ad litem, if necessary.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the State's claim that the application of the Krain ruling would create a blanket rule for the appointment of counsel for mentally incompetent habeas petitioners. The Ninth Circuit limited its holding to the appointment of counsel for the purpose of representing the petitioner at the competency hearing.
Discussion
In Pate v. Robinson 383 U.S. 375 (1966) and Drope v. Missouri 420 U.S. 162 (1975), the United States Supreme Court established the principle that the courts and prosecution must raise the issue of incompetence in a criminal defendant when there is sufficient evidence, even if the defense does not. In this case, an unrepresented petitioner in a habeas hearing was unable to follow the orders of the district court, and the evidence he provided regarding the presence of mental illness consisted of a sworn declaration from himself and a fellow prisoner as well as a letter from a prison psychiatrist. Although the petitioner did not directly request a competency hearing, the Ninth Circuit holds the district court accountable for raising the issue of incompetence.
The Ninth Circuit leaves open the criteria to be used in determining competence in pursuing a habeas petition. The language in the holding stated “an appropriate standard for habeas petitioners” should be applied. Further clarifications in this standard may develop with subsequent case law.
- American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law