(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANA SMITHEE, et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-0004 JLT CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUBSTITUTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM 14 PRATAP NARAYAN, et al., (Docs. 199, 200) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Dana Smithee and E.M., a minor, seek to recover damages following the death by suicide 18 of Smithee’s son and E.M.’s father, Cyrus Ayers, while Cyrus was incarcerated at California 19 Correctional Institution (“CCI”). The matter is scheduled for a settlement conference before U.S. 20 Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on April 11, 2025. (Doc. 192.) 21 On January 7, 2019, Jennifer Montes, E.M.’s mother, was appointed as E.M.’s guardian 22 ad litem. (Doc. 9.) On March 31, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to substitute Dana Smithee as E.M.’s 23 guardian ad litem in place of Ms. Montes, with both Ms. Montes and Ms. Smithee consenting to 24 the substitution. (Doc. 193.) On April 1, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge denied that motion 25 without prejudice to the filing within seven days of a renewed application addressing certain 26 deficiencies. (Doc. 195.) On April 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a renewed application that provided 27 additional information relevant to disposition of the substitution request. (See generally Docs. 1 continue to prosecute this suit as E.M.’s guardian. (Id. at 5.) 2 Though neither the March 31 nor April 4 applications were labeled as “ex parte,” the 3 magistrate judge nonetheless addressed the matter on an “ex parte” basis given the impending 4 settlement conference, and, after making relevant findings, granted the motion on April 7, 2025. 5 (See Doc. 199.) On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed “objections” to the magistrate judge’s 6 substitution order, (Doc. 200), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration pursuant 7 to Local Rule 303(c). Pursuant to Local Rule 303(f), this Court applies the “clearly erroneous or 8 contrary to law” standard of review to the substitution order, because it is a non-dispositive, 9 pretrial matter in civil case. 10 Defendant raises two substantive objections to the substitution order.1 First, Defendant 11 complains that the matter should not have been handled “ex parte” (i.e., on an expedited basis) 12 because to justify such treatment the moving party must show: (a) that proceeding via regular 13 notice procedures would prejudice them and (b) that the moving party is without fault in creating 14 the crisis or that the crisis occurred because of excusable neglect. (Doc. 200 at 2.) However, as 15 mentioned, the Plaintiffs did not formally request ex parte treatment. The magistrate judge simply 16 acted on the request quickly given the status of the case, having absolutely no reason to believe 17 there would be an objection from Defendant, who had been on notice of the substitution request 18 since March 31, 2025. Therefore, the Court finds no error in the magistrate judge sua sponte 19 expediting a ruling on the issue. 20 Second, Defendant protests that they will be “prejudiced” by the substitution because, 21 while Ms. Montes has been deposed, Ms. Smithee has not, ostensibly because she has not 22 “participated in the case.” (Doc. 200 at 3.) Defendant complains that “[s]ince the discovery cut- 23 off has already passed, Dana Smithee cannot be deposed without some serious procedural 24 gymnastics.” (Id.) This is a problem of the Defense’s own making. Ms. Smithee has been a 25 Plaintiff in this case since its inception, (Doc. 1), and is listed as a witness in Plaintiff’s pretrial 26

27 1 It is unclear whether Defendant even has standing to protest the substitution. See, e.g., Lopez v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-257, 2020 WL 6151582, at *12 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2020)(“The purpose behind 1 | statement. (Doc. 188.) Defendant had sufficient notice of Ms. Smithee’s involvement in the case. 2 | Defendant is not wrong to note that the explanation as to why Ms. Montes could no longer serve 3 | as guardian is thin on details, but the Defense also does not provide any authority indicating that 4 | further detail is necessary under the circumstances. 5 In sum, the Court finds no basis to reconsider the order substituting Ms. Smithee as the 6 | guardian ad litem, and the request for reconsideration is DENIED. 7 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 9, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28