Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 F.3d 938

Docket No. 93-2982.

Minerva v. Singletary

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 24, 1993.

2 counsel of record

Relies on Whitmore v. Arkansas · Rees v. Peyton · Demosthenes v. Baal

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-08-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2012

20199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin J. McClain, Office of Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, FL, for petitioner.

Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, FL, for respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

¶1

At the outset, the question before this court, in considering whether to grant a certificate of probable cause to appeal and a stay of execution, is whether Michael J. Minerva and Judith J. Dougherty have standing to proceed as next friend for Michael J. Durocher. Durocher has repeatedly and expressly declined to take any steps to interfere with his scheduled execution.

¶2

Those who seek federal habeas corpus relief in a next friend capacity have the burden of establishing standing and to do so must at least proffer "meaningful evidence that [the petitioner is] suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect that substantially affected his capacity to make an intelligent decision." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 166, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 1728, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). Minerva and Dougherty have not done so. They have failed to proffer meaningful evidence that Durocher is suffering from a mental disease, disorder, or defect that prevents him from understanding his legal position and the options available to him or that prevents him from making a rational choice among his options. See Rees v. Payton, 384 U.S. 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506, 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966); Lonchar v. Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1378, 122 L.Ed.2d 754 (1993). For this reason, no "adequate basis exists for the exercise of federal power" in this case. Demosthenes v. Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 737, 110 S.Ct. 2223, 2226, 109 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990).

¶3

The applications for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution are, accordingly,

¶4

DENIED.

/4/f3d/938 · .json · Public domain