Carter v. Bradshaw
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10572
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Carter faces the Ohio death penalty; district court found him incompetent, dismissed his habeas petition without prejudice, and prospectively tolled AEDPA pending competency.
- After state remedies were exhausted, Carter refused meetings with counsel; his attorneys filed a habeas petition and a motion for a pre-petition competency hearing.
- A competency hearing on May 1, 2006 found Carter suffering from schizophrenia, personality disorder, and hallucinations; opinions differed on his ability to assist counsel.
- Stinson updated that Carter’s condition worsened; the district court concluded he could not understand the position or aid habeas counsel.
- The Sixth Circuit amends the judgment: the petition should not have been dismissed; the proper remedy is to stay proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) for claims requiring Carter’s assistance.
- The court considers appointment of a next friend only for claims not requiring Carter’s direct input and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a statutory right to competency in habeas proceedings | Carter | Bradshaw | No constitutional or statutory right to competency in habeas proceedings |
| Proper remedy when petitioner is incompetent | Carter’s stay/next steps should follow 4241(d) | Bradshaw prefers dismissal with tolling | Remand with stay under 4241(d) for claims needing Carter’s assistance; appoint next friend where feasible |
| Appointment of a next friend for an incompetent habeas petitioner | Next friend permissible to litigate some claims | Next friend not appropriate for all claims | Court may appoint next friend only for nonessential-assistance claims; not for those needing Carter’s unique input |
| Whether district court properly stayed or dismissed under AEDPA | District court should stay under 4241(d) rather than dismiss | Dismissal with prospective tolling was appropriate | Dismissal was improper; case should be stayed under 4241(d) for applicable claims |
| Scope of claims to stay versus proceed | Some claims require Carter’s input; others do not | All claims should be handled with available procedures | Identify claims not requiring Carter’s input and stay; others proceed with potential next friend where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966) (competence in waiving postconviction relief)
- Harper v. Parker, 177 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 1999) (pre-petition competency is evaluable by district court)
- Hargrove v. Brigano, 300 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2002) (equitable tolling of AEDPA and stay upon incompetence)
- Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003) (stay based on right to meaningful counsel, not adopted here)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (next friend doctrine and authorization to litigate for incapacitated)