Brock v. County of Fresno ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST O’NEIL RAHKIN BROCK, No. 1:18-cv-01615-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT KAREN NORRIS AS 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, on behalf of GUARDIAN AD LITEM Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, 15 (Doc. No. 16) Defendant. 16 17 18 On October 10, 2019, plaintiff Ernest O’Neil Rahkin Brock filed a motion requesting that 19 Karen Norris, his grandmother, be appointed his guardian ad litem in this action due to plaintiff’s 20 incapacitation and incompetence as a result of having suffered a traumatic brain injury. (Doc. 21 No. 16.) The motion is unopposed. 22 A person’s capacity to sue or be sued is determined by the standard of the law of his 23 domicile, which here is California law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). “In California, a party 24 is incompetent if he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the 25 proceeding, or is unable to assist counsel in the preparation of the case.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. 26 Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1050 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citations omitted). Evidence of 27 incompetence can be drawn from various sources, including: “a report of mental disability by a 28 government agency; the sworn declaration of the person or those who know him; the 1 | representations of counsel; diagnosis of mental illness; a review of medical records; the person’s 2 | age, illnesses, and general mental state; and the court’s own observations of the person’s 3 | behavior, including the person’s ‘manner and comments throughout the case’ that suggest he does 4 | not ‘have a grasp on the nature and purpose of the proceedings|.]’” Jd. The evidence “must 5 || speak to the court’s concern as to whether the person in question is able to meaningfully take part 6 | inthe proceedings.” Owens v. Degazio, No. 2:16-cv-2750J-AMK-JNP, 2019 WL 5959894, at *2 7 | (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2019) (citations omitted). Normally, the decision to appoint a guardian ad 8 | litem is “left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 9 | F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 Here, plaintiff petitions the court to appoint Karen Norris as his guardian ad litem to 11 | represent him and protect his rights in this action. (Doc. No. 16.) According to a declaration by 12 || Loyst Fletcher, plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff requires a guardian ad litem, see Eastern District 13 |} Local Rule 202(a), because of his incapacitation as a result of a traumatic brain injury he suffered 14 | while in prison and which is the subject of this action. (Doc. No. 16, Fletcher Decl. at {] □□□□□ 15 | Plaintiff currently resides with Norris, his grandmother, who “meets all the qualifications required 16 | by this Court for guardian ad litem, is ready, willing, and able to represent Plaintiff in this action 17 | to the best of her ability, and is fully competent to understand and protect Plaintiff's rights.” 18 | (Doc. No. 16 at 3; Fletcher Decl. at §/ 4.) Norris also has no interests adverse to those of plaintiff 19 | and is not connected in her business with any adverse party. (/d.) 20 Finding good cause: 21 1. The motion to appoint a guardian ad litem, (Doc. No. 16), is granted; and 22 2. Karen Norris is appointed guardian ad litem for plaintiff Erest O’Neil Rahkin 23 Brock. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ November 19, 2019 Vi AL aaa 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28