Linda Martiniano, Next Friend for Paul Dennis Reid v. Ricky Bell, Warden
454 F.3d 616
6th Cir.
2006
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 costs $367.13, or half of the preparation por- in by Orange producing

incurred not in- appendix supplemental tions of Other joint appendix. in Nack’s cluded according determined shall be costs F.R.A.P. 39.

AFFIRMED. BATCHELDER, SILER,

Before: CLAY, Judges. Circuit SILER, J., opinion of the delivered MARTINIANO, Next Friend

Linda BATCHELDER, J., joined. REID, Petitioner- Paul Dennis 617-19), delivered (pp. J. Appellee, in separate in part. v. BELL, Warden, Respondent-

Ricky OPINION

Appellant. SILER, Judge. Kirkpatrick parallel This is a case (6th Cir.2003). Sixth Circuit. Appx. Reid, and Paul Dennis Both cases involve peti to Reid involve a relative both cases in eve of execution tioning the court on the only difference is a murder case. The in case are different petitioners each case and the convictions each persons The convic separate homicides. involve involved in the tions County, and the in Davidson homicides ease involved homicides convictions in Tennessee. County, all Montgomery court did not find that the district its discretion abuse and decline to State’s stay for the reasons motion to vacate the herein. stated that the decision Although it is correct as moot on was dismissed agreement par- post- ties, signed a state because Reid our hours after conviction within *2 case, neverthe- the court should set a full evidentiary reasoning less the in our in Kirk- competency Reid, which still holds. is patrick relevant to whether Martiniano may proceed on behalf of Reid in this case. See At the before the district court 312, 314, Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. case, petitioner presented in this testi- 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 It also mony expert, Woods, of an Dr. George W. have a bearing on whether Reid is compe Jr., and the affidavits of other tent to be executed under the criteria of experts, indicating mental health that Reid 399, Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. is The State asked for an (1986), S.Ct. 91 L.Ed.2d 335 which opportunity to evaluate Reid and could not was cited in petition for a writ complete prior the evaluation to the sched- corpus filed in this case. If the uled execution. ques- The State raised the district court finds Reid to incompetent, be petitioner tion that the is not entitled to a then it should allow Linda Martiniano stay intentionally dilatory because she was some other person proceed suitable by filing her case on the eve of execution. his next friend in appropriate post-conviction hand, petitioner On the other suggests proceedings If he is compe . knew after the tent to waive his further appeals or to question decision that the on his own then the next tency would eventually, be friend proceedings should be terminated. the State should have taken measures to evaluate Reid at some time between 2003 The motion to vacate the and the execution date. DENIED, tion is and this matter RE- is MANDED to the district court for further The district court found that there was proceedings consistent with opinion. this sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about Reid’s competence under Judge, Kirkpatrick and that the parties are enti- in part. tled to a full hearing on the question competence. of his I agree with that the dis- that, before proceeding trict court did not abuse its discretion in further, it should determine whether there of execution to enable the post-conviction is state adjudicate district court to ongoing that suggest brother, would that Reid has of Petitioner’s Paul Dennis Reid. exhausted his state remedies before the district court’s decision com- filing in the case. ports See 28 panel’s this instructions of three 2254(b)(1).1 § In the event the years ago dis- concerning course trict court determines that petitioner action to be taken when 2254(b)(1), has met requirements to be reasonably executed is in doubt. See remedies,” Greer, correctly 1. The Granberry notes that concurrence/dissent provision indicates that a writ should not 107 S.Ct. 95 L.Ed.2d 119 granted (1987), unless the has exhausted excep- but if there are unusual and his remedies available in the state courts or may proceed tional circumstances the courts "there is an absence of available State correc- total exhaustion. Id. at process; Thus, tive or circumstances exist that ren- imply we do not mean to der such ineffective to if court here finds unusual or circumstances, applicant.” exceptional We know that such as those re- strong presumption 2254(b)(1), "there is a favor of cited in it could not requiring pursue his available decide the of Reid. (6th any matter Appx. 495 Reid’s next friend on Kirkpatrick v. Cir.2003) alleged At the same Reid court. (instructing the district incapable making rational deci- to be a full eviden- stay the execution and hold his own an initial sions on behalf. Without competen tiary hearing defendant’s *3 issue, on the the dis- competency doubt as if it is adduced that reasonable cy will in doubt as to the trict court be left exists). competency to litigate the appropriate party to Therefore, if this to “parallel” case is the exhaustion, issue, on any or Reid’s (as asserts), majority the behalf. why majority the feels I fail to understand the important It is to note that exhaus- to raise compelled the § 2254 requirement of 28 U.S.C. con- tion when was neither sponte, sua the issue pre- The statute exceptions. tains several Court, nor raised below to this to it cludes the of a writ unless district to address ex- the court has appears “exhausted a matter before haustion as threshold remedies in the courts of the the available any evidentiary hearing concern- holding State, that an or there is either absence of major- ing competency. Reid’s the process cir- available corrective ity’s to district court on instructions the exist render such cumstances that sending litigation this matter risk back to ap- the the ineffective tailspin it very into the seems to 2254(b)(1) (emphasis plicant.” the stayed past years. have for three As added). An execution scheduled before a present the state Tennessee timely an has to liti- opportunity or unwilling has been unable to by gate permitted his claims as adjudication competency with an of Reid’s law, agree to a and Tennessee’s refusal to evidentiary proceed- full hearing; a resolution of court on ings before district status, certainly Petitioner’s next friend 2006, the state of averred that Tennessee a case presents where circumstances it forward with unprepared go was to a are are such that state mechanisms inef- hearing, fact despite the that rights. in protecting By fective Reid’s an issue in has been terms, then, very 28 U.S.C. allows litigation parties between some these address Reid’s compe- years. past form or another three tency even if claim is is, system. court unquestionably, impor- “unexhausted” the state issue, tant that would seem undisputed It is the state cannot diverting needlessly Reid if execute he is See away from critical and as attention v. Wainwright, Ford yet unresolved issue of the last three 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 As the years. The threshold issue be- indicates, ruling below sufficient evidence competency. fore the courts is Reid’s incompetency was at evidentiary hearing a full on com- Without district by conducted remand, immediately petency the dis- on June in connection with the left trict court is without direction motion to to merit a appropriate full matter. any interests in further The by Having attempts rebuffed both Reid’s court has Reid to yet not counsel and his to establish Reid’s sister therefore, Petitioner incompetent; does the state of yet authority has that it desires to have as Tennessee indicated carry out the death sentence before the timely

federal courts can exercise their AVELLO, T. Petitioner, Nicholas review of the state’s decision. If Reid competent defendant pursuing were his relief, own federal habeas of execu- AND SECURITIES EXCHANGE during pendency

tion of his federal COMMISSION, Respondent. would have been automat- ic. In the recognized absence next acting however,

friend on Reid’s opposed any stay the state has Seventh Circuit. *4 tion while Petitioner seeks habeas relief on competency, the issue of Reid’s the same May Submitted 2006. issue Petitioner to the state courts Reid’s behalf. The district court May 26, Decided 2006. properly stayed therefore Reid’s execution July Published 2006.* pending a determination of tency, a determination which should be Rehearing Suggestion for Rehearing immediately upon made remand because En Banc Denied is the threshold issue in litigation. issues, along issues, can be addressed once the district court has determined the Reid’s interests before court; this, to do adjudicated.

must first be essence, has decided that a may condemned man who be incom-

petent to be executed should be forced to

litigate complicated having determination been made

as to whether he is able to understand the proceedings, nature of the to consult with counsel, and to participate otherwise I in up- therefore concur holding the district I dissent from the

majority’s instruction to the

that the district court cannot fur-

ther on issue without delving first into what protracted litigation. exhaustion * motion, originally This decision was published opin- released as an we now issue it as a unpublished Upon order. the Commission’s ion.