Ayers v. Burton

Background

Bobby Ray Ayers, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole. The opinion states that Ayers was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life. He challenged the most recent parole denial in the state appellate and high courts without success before filing the federal petition.

Ayers claimed that the parole denial following a May 13, 2020 hearing violated due process. He also sought discharge to the California Department of Mental Health or hospital for a specified commitment. In state court, he had claimed that he was improperly denied a psychologist as an expert witness. Although that claim was not stated in the federal petition, the court liberally construed the petition as including it.

Due-Process Claim

The court explained that California prisoners have a protected liberty interest in parole release and therefore must receive adequate procedural protections. Under the Supreme Court’s parole decisions, those protections include an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons for denying parole. The court also discussed access to records before the hearing.

The court found that Ayers did not allege that he was denied any of those protections. Instead, his claim was that he was denied a psychologist as an expert witness. The court held that an expert witness was not one of the minimum procedural protections required for parole proceedings and that this allegation did not state a claim for federal habeas relief.

The court dismissed the petition but granted leave to amend. It allowed Ayers to state a claim based on denial of an opportunity to be heard, notification of the reasons for denying parole, or access to records. The court stated that if Ayers received all those protections, the action would have to be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.

Counsel and Guardian ad Litem

Ayers requested appointment of counsel because of what he described as a severe mental disorder. The court denied that request because there is no general right to appointed counsel in a habeas action, an evidentiary hearing was not currently necessary, and Ayers had not yet stated a cognizable claim.

The court also treated the request as one for appointment of a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect an unrepresented minor or incompetent litigant. The court found no substantial question about Ayers’s current competence and no verifiable evidence requiring an inquiry. The mental-health records he submitted were nearly a year old when he filed the action, did not directly state that he was incompetent, and indicated that no crisis issues or treatment barriers were present. The court also noted Ayers’s ability to explain his claims.

Disposition

The court ordered that the petition be dismissed with leave to file an amended petition on the court’s form within 28 days. The amended petition had to use the caption and case number in the order and include the words “AMENDED PETITION” on its first page. The court stated that failure to respond on time would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. Ayers’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice. Judge Beth Freeman also directed the clerk to send Ayers two copies of the court’s petition form.