Estate of Delion Johnson v. County of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01304
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Estate of Delion Johnson et al., No. 2:23-cv-01304-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. County of Sacramento et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The Estate of Delion Johnson by and through real-parties-in interest, plaintiffs D.J. and 18 | M.J., the biological children of Johnson, brings this civil rights action against defendants County 19 | of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Jim Cooper, and 20 Doe defendants. 20 | See Compl., ECF No. 1. Minor plaintiffs D.J. and M.J. now move the court for an order 21 | appointing their mother, Marlisa Hill, as their guardian ad litem. Mot., ECF No. 6; see Mem., 22 | ECF No. 6-1. There has been no opposition filed. For the reasons below, the court denies the 23 | motion without prejudice. 24 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1)(A), a general guardian may sue on behalf 25 | ofaminor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1)(A). “[A] parent is a guardian who may so sue.” Doe ex rel. 26 | Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 13-01145, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 27 | June 12, 2013) (citation omitted); see AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1052 28 | (E.D. Cal. 2015) (“A general guardian is ‘[a] guardian who has general care and control of the

1 ward’s person and estate.’” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)) (alteration in 2 original)). 3 Here, plaintiffs move the court for an order appointing their mother, Marlisa Hill, as their 4 guardian ad litem. The court finds the appointment of a guardian ad litem is not necessary at this 5 time. Cf. Brown v. Alexander, No. 13-01451, 2015 WL 1744331, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) 6 (“[T]he rules permitting a court to appoint a guardian ad litem exist for precisely the situation in 7 which the child’s interests are best served if he or she is represented by someone other than a 8 custodial parent or other general guardian.” (emphasis in original)). In her declaration in support 9 of the motion, Ms. Hill states the minor plaintiffs have no general guardian. Hill Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 10 No. 6-2. However, the same declaration states Ms. Hill is their “legal parent and biological 11 mother,” id. ¶ 1, and “maintain[s] sole custody” of both minors, id. ¶ 4. From the record, it is 12 unclear how their mother is not their general guardian. See, e.g., J.F. v. San Diego Cnty. Unified 13 Sch. Dist., No. 19-2495, 2020 WL 30435, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020) (noting if parents have 14 custody of their minor child and care for his needs, it is unclear why they are not his general 15 guardians who can sue on his behalf). Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. 16 Plaintiffs may re-file the motion with an explanation and citation to legal authority 17 showing why appointment of the mother as guardian ad litem is necessary and appropriate in this 18 case. Alternatively, to comply with the court’s local rules, plaintiffs may file a notice making “a 19 showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate 20 representation of the minor.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(a). Any such motion or notice shall be filed 21 within fourteen (14) days of the filing date of this order. The hearing set for September 22, 22 2023, is hereby vacated. 23 This order resolves ECF No. 6. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: August 29, 2023.