Wallace v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-05117
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Aaron Wallace, No. CV-19-05117-PHX-GMS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants the State of Arizona, et al.’s Motion 16 requesting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Plaintiff Aaron Wallace requires 17 the appointment of a guardian ad litem.1 (Doc. 38.) Because Plaintiff is represented by 18 counsel in this action, the Motion is denied without prejudice to the Court holding such a 19 hearing on any suggestion that Plaintiff’s interests are or may be different than the interests 20 of his attorneys. 21 Plaintiff has suffered from serious mental illness for most of his life. At the time 22 this lawsuit was filed in October 2018, Plaintiff was involuntarily committed to the Arizona 23 State Hospital (“AzSH”), and had been for more than six years, under a Guilty Except 24 Insane adjudication on an assault charge. Plaintiff has been involuntarily committed on 25 multiple other occasions, including in July 2019, after his release from AzSH and while 26 this case was pending. In his First Amended Complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior 27 1 The Motion is titled “Motion Requesting Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem for 28 Plaintiff Aaron Wallace.” However, Defendants do not actually request appointment of a guardian ad litem but rather a hearing to determine whether such appointment is warranted. 1 Court on July 27, 2019, Plaintiff alleged that he was designated as seriously mentally ill as 2 an adolescent, and that, at the time of filing, Plaintiff’s mental impairment was so severe 3 “as to interfere substantially with his capacity to remain in the community without 4 supportive treatment or services of a long-term or indefinite duration.” (Doc. 38-5 at 2.) 5 Moreover, at various points throughout this case, Plaintiff has maintained only “sporadic” 6 contact with his attorneys. (Doc. 38-3 at 2.) 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) governing representation on behalf of minors 8 and incompetent persons provides that courts “must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue 9 another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented 10 in an action.” “The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to protect an incompetent person’s interests in 11 prosecuting or defending a lawsuit.” Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). 12 Thus, “[o]nce the court determines that a pro se litigant is incompetent, the court generally 13 should appoint a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c).” Id. However, the Rule does not make 14 such an appointment mandatory: “[i]f another order would sufficiently protect the 15 incompetent person’s interests in the litigation in lieu of a guardian, the court may enter 16 such an order.” Id. This includes “appointed counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),” 17 which may be sufficient depending on the facts of the case. Id. at 1311. At the same time, 18 other courts have found that, the qualifying word “unrepresented” in Rule 17(c) 19 notwithstanding, “the mere presence of an attorney representing” an incompetent person 20 may be “insufficient of itself to protect her personal interests in [an] action.” See Noe v. 21 True, 507 F.2d 9, 12 (6th Cir. 1974 (stating that, in the case of a 14-year-old seeking an 22 abortion, “ultimate responsibility for determinations made on behalf of the child” is “a role 23 not ordinarily contemplated by the simple attorney-client relationship”). 24 Plaintiff is not “unrepresented” in this action. Moreover, Defendants have not 25 provided any evidence at all to suggest that Plaintiff’s interests conflict with those of his 26 attorneys. 27 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants the State of Arizona, et al.’s 28 Motion requesting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Plaintiff Aaron Wallace 1 || requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem (Doc. 38) is DENIED without prejudice. 2 Dated this 22nd day of June, 2020. Wars ) 4 A Whacrsay Sooo) 5 Chief United states District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-