(PC) Hampton v. California Correctional Healthcare Services

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00518
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Order 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS LEROY HAMPTON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD 13 v. LITEM 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL (Doc. No. 8) HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Defendants. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. No. 10) 16 17 Pending before the Court are two motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Thomas Leroy 18 Hampton on April 2, 2024. In his first, a Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiff 19 requests the appointment of Ms. Shadale L. Williams, a fellow inmate at R.J. Donovan 20 Correctional Facility, as his guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 8). In support, Plaintiff attaches the 21 Declaration of Ms. Williams. (Doc. No. 9). In his second, a Motion for Extension of Time, 22 Plaintiff requests additional time to file his amended complaint. (Doc. No. 10). For reasons set 23 forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem but 24 grants the Motion for Extension of Time. 25 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) requires a court to “appoint guardian ad litem—or 27 issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented 28 in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “A party proceeding pro se in a civil lawsuit is entitled to 1 a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. 2 Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). In determining whether substantial evidence of 3 incompetence is presented, the district court may consider sworn declarations from the pro se 4 party or other inmates, sworn declarations or letters from treating psychiatrists or psychologists, 5 and his medical history. Id. at 1152–54. 6 A person’s capacity to sue is measured by the standard of the law of his domicile, Fed. R. 7 Civ. P. 17(b)(1). Because Plaintiff is incarcerated in California, California state law applies. “In 8 California, a party is incompetent if he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature or 9 consequences of the proceeding, or is unable to assist counsel in the preparation of the case.” 10 Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Stewart, 2012 WL 4482053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (citing In 11 re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1186 (2001); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372; and In re Sara D., 12 87 Cal. App. 4th 661, 666–67 (2001)). Once a substantial question regarding a party’s 13 competence is raised, the court is under “legal obligation” to consider whether the incompetent 14 person is adequately protected. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in 15 Klickitat Cnty., State of Wash. (Acres), 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986)). The court’s 16 obligation to either appoint a guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order under Rule 17 17(c) does not arise “until after a determination of incompetence has been made by the court in 18 which the issue is raised.” Forte v. Cnty. of Merced, 2013 WL 3282957, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 19 2013) (citing Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 2003)) 20 (emphasis omitted). 21 Here, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to establish the need for appointment of 22 a guardian ad litem.1 Plaintiff’s filing asserts that he has “become less literate, slow to learn and 23 comprehend” however he does not provide a declaration or any medical documentation 24 1 Plaintiff’s Motion proposes appointing Ms. Williams as guardian ad litem or “next to friend.” (Doc. No. 25 8 at 3). Rule 17(c) refers to both guardian ad litem and a “next friend.” Traditionally, guardian ad litem and next friend were different offices. See, e.g., Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1076 n. 1 (9th 26 Cir.1978); 6A Charles A. Wright, et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1572 (3d ed.) (“Prior to the adoption of Federal Rule 17(c), . . . [a next friend] was empowered to bring suit on behalf of an infant or incompetent, 27 whereas [a guardian ad litem] defended actions against the infant or incompetent.”). In modern practice, however, the distinction is one of name only. AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1053 28 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (internal citations omitted). 1 suggesting that he is incompetent or that he “lacks the capacity to understand the nature or 2 consequences of [this] proceeding.” (Doc. No. 8 at 2); see Golden Gate Way, LLC, 2012 WL 3 4482053 at *2. Although Plaintiff submits a Declaration from Williams in support of his Motion, 4 the Declaration does not attest to Plaintiff’s incompetence or otherwise establish the need for 5 Plaintiff to be appointed a guardian ad litem. (See Doc. No. 9). Indeed, while Plaintiff’s case has 6 not yet proceeded past screening, he nonetheless has capably filed an intelligible Complaint and 7 First Amended Complaint that do not indicate Plaintiff lacks the capacity to represent himself 8 adequately. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 6). 9 Further, Ms. Williams likely does not meet the requirements to be appointed guardian ad 10 litem. A guardian ad litem is “[a] guardian, [usually] a lawyer, appointed by the court to appear 11 in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or minor party.” Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 12 2014). “Ad litem” means “[f]or the purposes of the suit; pending the suit.” Id. While a self- 13 represented, non-attorney litigant may represent himself “that privilege is personal” and does not 14 entitle another non-attorney to represent him. Genaro v. Dep’t of Corr., 2021 WL 6772969, at *2 15 (D. Alaska Feb. 4, 2021). A self-represented litigant has no authority to appear as an attorney for 16 anyone other than himself. Id., see Johns v. San Diego County, 114 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997) (“it 17 is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. Where 18 they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their 19 rights may be fully protected”) (internal citations omitted). A non-lawyer guardian ad litem must 20 secure representation from counsel. There is no indication that Ms. Williams intends to secure 21 counsel and she may not represent another pro se party in litigation.2 Accordingly, the Court will 22 deny Plaintiff’s Motion to appoint Ms. William as a guardian ad litem. 23 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 24 Plaintiff also requests a 30-day extension of time to respond to the Court’s September 25, 25 2023 Screening Order or file an amended complaint because he needs to conduct additional 26

27 2 The Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion does not preclude Ms. Williams from assisting Plaintiff in preparation of his legal filings, including his second amended complaint, if permitted by correctional 28 regulations. 1 | research and obtain documents related to his claim. (Doc. No. 10). The Court may grant an 2 | extension of time “with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before 3 | the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). The Court finds good cause 4 | to grant the extension. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Ms. Shadale L. Williams as Guardian ad Litem 7 (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED. 8 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9 No. 10) is GRANTED. 10 3. Plaintiff shall deliver his response to the Court’s September 25, 2023 Screening Order 11 or his amended complaint to correctional officials for mailing no later than May 10, 12 2024. 13 "| Dated: __April 10, 2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28