Theresa M. Bodnar v. Catherine Bodnar, Margaret Bodnar, Individually and as Administratrix of Theestate of Mary H. Bodnar, Deceased

Fifth Circuit

Theresa M. Bodnar v. Catherine Bodnar, Margaret Bodnar, Individually and as Administratrix of Theestate of Mary H. Bodnar, Deceased

441 F.2d 1103, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1501, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10492

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1971

Docket30514

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 1103 (Theresa M. Bodnar v. Catherine Bodnar, Margaret Bodnar, Individually and as Administratrix of Theestate of Mary H. Bodnar, Deceased) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Theresa M. Bodnar v. Catherine Bodnar, Margaret Bodnar, Individually and as Administratrix of Theestate of Mary H. Bodnar, Deceased, 441 F.2d 1103, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1501, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10492 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this case is whether the District Court could properly dismiss Appellant’s (Theresa M. Bodnar) case, without prejudice, after she had refused to submit to a mental examina *1104 tion for the purpose of determining whether she was mentally competent to understand the nature and effect of the litigation she had instituted, so that if needed a guardian ad litem could be appointed. We affirm.

The Defendants filed a motion for an order requiring Theresa M. Bodnar to submit to an examination to determine if she were mentally competent to understand the nature and effect of her suit.

The District Judge, with ample factual basis for apprehending Appellant’s incompetence, granted the motion. Appellant nevertheless refused to comply with this order. In view of this deliberate refusal to comply with the order, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice January 26, 1970.

Appellant took no appeal from the final judgment of dismissal, but she did file a petition of mandamus in this Court. We dismissed the petition.

With the judgment now final and unappealable, Appellant filed a F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (4) motion in the Trial Court in which she sought to vacate the judgment of dismissal on the ground that it was void for want of jurisdiction. F.R. Civ.P. 60(b) (4). The Court denied the 60(b) motion. The Court had plenary power under F.R.Civ.P. 17(c), cf. F.R.Civ.P. 35(a), to order the examination of Appellant under appropriate protective restrictions as to which there can be no complaint here.

A trial court is not powerless to ascertain whether a litigant is competent and, if it finds that he is not, to appoint a guardian ad litem. Where there is a showing of a substantial question of competency, the Judge with protective restrictions can, in making that determination, require a medical examination. Nothing in Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 1964, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152, in considering F.R.Civ.P. 35(a) compels us to reach a contrary result.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this case is whether the District Court could properly dismiss Appellant’s (Theresa M. Bodnar) case, without prejudice, after she had refused to submit to a mental examina *1104 tion for the purpose of determining whether she was mentally competent to understand the nature and effect of the litigation she had instituted, so that if needed a guardian ad litem could be appointed. We affirm.

The Defendants filed a motion for an order requiring Theresa M. Bodnar to submit to an examination to determine if she were mentally competent to understand the nature and effect of her suit.

The District Judge, with ample factual basis for apprehending Appellant’s incompetence, granted the motion. Appellant nevertheless refused to comply with this order. In view of this deliberate refusal to comply with the order, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice January 26, 1970.

Appellant took no appeal from the final judgment of dismissal, but she did file a petition of mandamus in this Court. We dismissed the petition.

With the judgment now final and unappealable, Appellant filed a F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (4) motion in the Trial Court in which she sought to vacate the judgment of dismissal on the ground that it was void for want of jurisdiction. F.R. Civ.P. 60(b) (4). The Court denied the 60(b) motion. The Court had plenary power under F.R.Civ.P. 17(c), cf. F.R.Civ.P. 35(a), to order the examination of Appellant under appropriate protective restrictions as to which there can be no complaint here.

A trial court is not powerless to ascertain whether a litigant is competent and, if it finds that he is not, to appoint a guardian ad litem. Where there is a showing of a substantial question of competency, the Judge with protective restrictions can, in making that determination, require a medical examination. Nothing in Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 1964, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152, in considering F.R.Civ.P. 35(a) compels us to reach a contrary result.

Affirmed.

880 F.2d 1119 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cyntje v. Government of the Virgin Islands

19 V.I. 248 (Virgin Islands, 1982)

Swift v. Swift

64 F.R.D. 440 (E.D. New York, 1974)

John J. Donnelly v. Honorable Barrington D. Parker

486 F.2d 402 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 1103, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1501, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theresa-m-bodnar-v-catherine-bodnar-margaret-bodnar-individually-and-as-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack