have addressed competency to be executed have recognized Justice Powell’s proffered test as the appropriate standard by which to determine competence. See, e.g., Scott v. Mitchell, 250 F.3d 1011, 1014 (6th Cir. 2001) (concluding that the standard established in “Ohio’s Ford statute,” ie., “that the convict in question does not have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and why it was imposed upon the convict,” appropriately defines incompetence to be executed); Massie v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1195 n. 1 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Ford for the proposition that “the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it”); Fearance v. Scott, 56 F.3d 633, 640 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Rector v. Clark, 923 F.2d 570, 572 (8th
holding that constructive knowledge satisfies the reason to know standard holding that a  1983 claim generally accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action  recognizing that the ford standard requires only that an inmate know the fact of his impending execution and the reason for it holding that an inmate was not an employee with standing to file a complaint for violations of the worker and community rightto know act holding that questions about employees impending retirement failed to rebut the employers nondiscriminatory reason for termination particularly considering employee admitted that he did not know whether questions were for a legitimate purpose in concluding overall that the plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext