No. 18-8984

Nathan Caetano v. Suzanne M. Peery, Warden

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aedpa burden-of-proof civil-rights due-process habeas-corpus mental-competency mental-incompetence ninth-circuit-precedent ninth-circuit-test retrospective-competency-determination retrospective-determination state-action structural-error
Latest Conference: 2019-06-20
Question Presented (from Petition)

Is AeDpA (i)(B) and ts determination actvally a retrospective
determination where mental incompetence is the impediment?
Competency

DOES AEDPACISCB):
wording "created by State action" allow the petitioner
Po
to prove a Pate violation occured (structural error) as written under the law to.
prove the impediment exists (mental incompetence) instead of having to pove
the impediment exists going backwards in time through th pursal of medial cecords?

Does Moran v. Godinez, 57 F3d 690 precedent governing "retrospective
competency determinations also apply to retrospective ImpEDImeNT.
determinattons within AEppacixs) and the Ninth Circuits two-part test in
Bills v. Clark, thus placing the borden on the prosection where Petitoner can
prove the state acton by a fact?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a retrospective competency determination where mental incompetence is the impediment is permissible under AEDPA(4)(B)

Docket Entries

2019-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-05-28
Waiver of right of respondent Suzanne M. Peery, Warden to respond filed.
2018-12-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 24, 2019)

Attorneys

Nathan Caetano
Nathan Caetano — Petitioner
Suzanne M. Peery, Warden
Tami Michelle KrenzinOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent