# Mason ex rel. Marson v. Vasquez

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 6, 1993 · 5 F.3d 1226

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6928369

## Case

- **Full name:** David Edwin MASON, By and Through Charles C. MARSON v. Daniel B. VASQUEZ, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee David Edwin MASON, Randy ALANA, Patrick Tafoya and Lee Terry Farmer, as next friends of David E. Mason, Applicants in intervention-Appellants v. Daniel B. VASQUEZ, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 6, 1993
- **Citations:** 5 F.3d 1226; 1993 WL 390215
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Noonan
- **Judges:** Beezer, Fernandez, Kozinski, Noonan, Poole, Pregerson, Schroeder, Tang, Thompson, Trott, Wallace
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6928369

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that conclusory 6 allegations that supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and procedures which authorized 7 unconstitutional conduct of subordinates do not suffice to state a claim of supervisory liability

## Opinion text

NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I concur in Judge Pregerson’s dissent and add the following:
1. The rules, as carefully constructed to govern cases involving the imposition of death, were not observed.
2. Precedent was not observed. If reasonable jurists can disagree on the merits of an issue involving death, the court should grant a stay so that the matter may be fully considered. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 , 893 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 3383 , 3394-95 n. 4, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983).
3. Emergencies and errors of the kind that occurred in this case are created by the exigencies of state law setting a twenty-four hour period in which the death warrant is good. Cal.Penal Code § 1227 (“appointing a day upon which the judgment shall be executed”). The State of California is capable of legislative action that does not impose such draconian limits. See id. § 1227.5.
The state law should be conformed to the requirements of the United States Constitution and the review that habeas corpus provides thereunder.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6928369. Public record. Not legal advice.