Ornoski

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO ESPINOZA, No. 2:94-cv-1665 KJM DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254.1 Before the court is petitioner’s counsel’s motion to have 19 petitioner declared incompetent and for appointment of a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 17. (ECF No. 309.) Respondent has informed the court that they take no 21 position on the motion. (ECF No. 323.) After hearing petitioner’s counsel’s argument, this court 22 determined that the appropriate first step in considering counsel’s motion was to conduct an in- 23 person hearing to question petitioner about his understanding of these proceedings and whether he 24 consents to the appointment of a guardian ad litem (the “notice hearing”). This court also noted 25

1 When petitioner filed this action, he was under a sentence of death. In 2018,…