In Re: Leon Moser

Opinion

Opinions of the United

1995 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

8-16-1995

In Re: Leon Moser Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-9003

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

Recommended Citation "In Re: Leon Moser" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 220. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/220

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 95-9003

___________

In Re: Leon Moser

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 15, 1995

Before: MANSMANN, COWEN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

(Filed: August 15, l995)

Per Curiam.

The State1 challenges the district court's entry, in

this next friend petition, of a stay of execution pending an independent psychiatric exam and evidentiary hearing to determine Mr. Moser's mental competency.

The parties have not delineated the basis of our jurisdiction nor do they dispute it. It is nonetheless incumbent

upon us to ensure a proper exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. Because the effect of the stay here is injunctive in nature, we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1). See Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1165 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011 (1992). Jurisdiction is also 1 The "State" includes Martin Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; and Joseph P. Maurkiewicz, Superintendent of the State Correction Institution at Rockview.

2

appropriate as an exercise of our mandamus authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

We review the district court's entry of the stay of execution for an abuse of discretion. Wainwright v. Ford, 467 U.S. 1220 (1984) (Powell, J., concurring); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U.S. 1344 (1983). The district court here soundly exercised its discretion in adopting procedures consistent with those adopted by the district court as we described in In Re Zettlemoyer, 53 F.3d 24 (3d Cir. 1995) in holding the next friend petition in abeyance to permit resolution of the issue of Mr. Moser's competence to waive his right to federal court review of his conviction and sentence pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2254. Here the district court reviewed the affidavits of Drs. Sadoff and Cooke, both of whom indicated that they found Mr. Moser incompetent in 1985 when they examined him in connection with the state competency proceedings. The court also considered the fact that Moser had been placed in Fairview psychiatric facility during his incarceration, that he is currently receiving anti-depressant medication and that his psychiatric records had not been released by the State.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of a stay of execution pending an independent psychiatric examination and evidentiary hearing to assess Mr. Moser's mental competence given that it is the threshold issue in the determination of standing of the "next friend" who petitioned on Mr. Moser's behalf. The mandate shall issue forthwith.