Groseclose ex rel. Harries v. Dutton

• Decision Date: 08 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 3-84-0579.,3-84-0579.
• Citation: 589 F. Supp. 362
• Parties: William GROSECLOSE, et al, ex rel. Ronald HARRIES v. Michael DUTTON, Warden, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

589 F. Supp. 362

William GROSECLOSE, et al, ex rel. Ronald HARRIES v. Michael DUTTON, Warden, et al.

No. 3-84-0579.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

June 8, 1984.

Jinx Woods, Larry Woods and William Marett, Jr., Richard McGee, for Ronald Harries, Ind., Hal Hardin, as guardian ad litem, appointed by Court, Nashville, Tenn., for petitioners.

Wayne Uhl, Asst. State Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., for respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN T. NIXON, District Judge.

On June 6, 1984 this Court received a petition for a writ of habeas corpus submitted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by William Groseclose, an inmate on death row at the Tennessee State Penitentiary in Nashville, Tennessee, Joseph Ingle, a minister and director of the Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons, and two anti-death penalty organizations, the Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons and the Tennessee Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The petitioners commenced this action individually and as next friends of Ronald Harries, who is confined within the custody of the respondents Michael Dutton, Warden of the Tennessee State Penitentiary in Nashville, and Ernest Pellegrin, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections due to his conviction for first degree murder and sentence of death by electrocution. State v. Harries, 657 S.W.2d 414 (Tenn.1983). Because Mr. Harries is scheduled to be executed on June 13, 1984 pursuant to an order of the Tennessee Supreme Court, the petitioners seek a stay of his execution pending consideration of alleged violations of the Federal Constitution that occurred during Mr. Harries' state trial. The petition alleges that since Mr. Harries' decision to forego further judicial review of his conviction was announced, the respondents have maintained him on anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs; thereby, rendering him unable to appreciate, realize or reconsider the impact of his decision to forego further judicial relief.

On June 6, 1984 this Court granted the petitioners' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, based upon the affidavit of poverty of Mr. Groseclose. During an on the record conference with counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, the Court granted the petitioners' motion for production of medical records of Mr. Harries. The respondents agreed to supply the medical records immediately. At that time the Court recognized the presence in the courtroom of Mr. Harries' legal counsel and invited them to participate as amicus. Mr. Harries' counsel interposed no objections to release of his client's medical records. To perserve the confidentiality of the medical records, the Court directed the Clerk to place under seal any medical records either party filed with the Court. Further, the Court directed both parties to be prepared on June 8, 1984 to address legal questions on the jurisdiction of this Court and the competency of Mr. Harries.

On June 8, 1984, this matter came on for consideration upon respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1) and (2). The respondents argue that the petitioners lack standing to bring this action on behalf of Mr. Harries, thus no "case" or "controversy" exists for jurisdictional purposes under Article III, section 2, clause 1 of the United States Constitution. The respondents oppose any evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction. At 9:00 a.m. this Court heard legal arguments from both sides on the issue of jurisdiction of the Court and the competency of Mr. Harries. Also during the hearing the Court granted petitioner's motion to amend the petition.

Having considered the entire record in this action and the arguments and briefs of counsel, this Court ORDERS for the reasons that follow that the execution of Ronald Harries be and hereby is stayed pending an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdiction of this Court and interwoven issue of the competency of Mr. Harries.

The petitioners seek to invoke this Court's jurisdiction to secure a writ of habeas corpus not for themselves but for Ronald Harries. Such third-party applications for a writ of habeas corpus are specifically authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, which requires that the petition be "signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf." (emphasis added). The third-party applicants, however, do not become the real party in interest. Instead, "the person under detention remains the real party in interest. For that reason, the `next friend' application has been uncommonly granted and has not been made available automatically even to the natural parents of a habeas corpus petitioner." Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services, 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 3244, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982) (Blackmun, J., Brennan, J. and Marshall, J. concurring). (citations omitted). Generally, third-party applications are limited to incidents of infancy, incompetency or lack of time. Evans v. Bennett, 440 U.S. 1301, 1304, 99 S.Ct. 1481, 1483, 59 L.Ed.2d 756 (1979).

In order to assert a third-party "next-friend" application under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511 (1978) distilled three requirements from relevant precedents. First, the third party applicant for a writ of habeas corpus for another must show why the detained person did not sign and verify the petition and the relationship and interest of the detained person. Second, the third party applicant must not be using the "next friend" vehicle to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Third, the third party applicant under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 must "set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity for resort to the `next friend' device," otherwise the court lacks jurisdiction to review the petition. Weber, 570 F.2d 513-14. This three-prong analysis is consistent with the standard articulated by the Sixth Circuit in Johnson v. Avery, 382 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969) which emphasized that the next-friend provision in § 2242 is designed to apply when a prisoner suffers from physical or mental handicaps. Id. at 357.

The inmate's competency or lack thereof was the major concern of Chief Justice Burger in Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 97 S.Ct. 436, 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976). In that case, Gary Mark Gilmore's mother sought "next friend" status to stay the execution of her son who expressly and repeatedly stated his desire for imposition of his sentence of death. Similar to this case, the State of Utah challenged Gary's mother standing to serve as her son's next friend under § 2242. Even though next-friend status initially appeared proper for Gary's mother, Chief Justice Burger explained that the next-friend concept was wholly inapplicable because subsequent to the filing of the petition, Gary Gilmore responded to the Court that he had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights, thus, the basis for standing of Gary's mother was eliminated. Id. at 1014, 97 S.Ct. at 437. As explained by Chief Justice Burger, the "only possible exception to this conclusion would be if the record suggested, despite the representations of Gary Mark Gilmore's attorneys, that he was incompetent to waive his right of appeal under state law and was at the present time incompetent to assert rights or to challenge" his mother's standing to assert rights on his behalf as next-friend. Id.

In deciding whether to issue a stay of execution for Jesse Bishop in Lenhard v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 1306, 100 S.Ct. 3, 61 L.Ed.2d 885 (1979), Justice Rehnquist determined that the mental competency of Mr. Bishop was the touchstone. Justice Rehnquist wrote, "From my view of the controlling legal precepts, the record evidence of competency is more important to the determination of whether a stay is appropriate than is the merit of the underlying application." Id. at 1310, 100 S.Ct. at 5. (emphasis added). Although Justice Rehnquist issued a stay in Lenhard, he did so because he was acting as surrogate for the Court. Justice Rehnquist explained that his personal view based on the record was against a stay of execution. Id. at 1313, 100 S.Ct. at 7. The rationale advanced was squarely based on the mental competency of Jesse Bishop. That evidence of competency was based on the opinion of several examining psychiatrists and the absence of any evidence of incompetency. Id. at 1311-12, 100 S.Ct. at 6-7.

The evidence in this case in no way satisfies the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gilmore and Lenhard, the Fifth Circuit in Weber or the Sixth Circuit in Johnson. Here, as in other cases, the respondents challenge the standing of petitioners to serve as next friends of Mr. Harries. As in Gilmore, the inmate, Mr. Harries, has indicated through affidavit that he does not desire that these or any other petitioners pursue potentially life-saving judicial relief before this or any other judicial tribunal.

However, unlike Gilmore or Lenhard, the record before this Court contains substantial evidence questioning the competency of Mr. Harries due to drugs being presently offered him by ...