G. v. Mariposa County Unified School District ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 T.G., A MINOR CHILD; BY AND Case No. 1:19-cv-01201-LJO-EPG THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM 12 TERESA GROSS, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM Plaintiff, 14 (ECF NO. 2) v. 15 MARIPOSA COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff T.G., a minor child, filed this action against Defendant, 19 Mariposa County Unified School District (“Defendant”), asserting a cause of action under Title 20 VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (ECF No. 1.) That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint 21 his mother, Teresa Gross, as guardian ad litem. (ECF No. 2.) 22 “To maintain a suit in a federal court, a child or mental incompetent must be represented 23 by a competent adult.” Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary School Dist., 2:13-cv-01145, 24 2013 WL 2666024 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (citation omitted). Rule 17(c) governs the 25 appearance of minors and incompetent persons in federal court. Rule 17(c)(1) prescribes: “The 26 following representatives may sue or defend on behalf of a minor or incompetent person: (A) a 27 general guardian; (B) a committee; (C) a conservator; or (D) a like fiduciary.” Rule 17(c)(2) 28 1 || states that, “[a] minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed 2 || representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a 3 | guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 4 | who is unrepresented in an action.” 5 A court has broad discretion in ruling on a guardian ad litem application. Basque v. Cty. 6 | of Placer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117290 at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2017). In general, a parent is 7 || presumed to act in his or her child’s best interests. See Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 604 (U.S. 8 | 1979) (noting general presumption that parents are presumed to act in the child’s best interests). 9 Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion to appoint Teresa Gross as his guardian ad 10 || litem should be granted. Gross, as Plaintiff’s mother, is presumed to act in his best interests, and 11 || there is nothing before the Court to undermine that presumption here. 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiffs “Petition for Guardian ad Litem” (ECF No. 2.) is GRANTED; and 14 2. Teresa Gross is hereby appointed as Plaintiff's guardian ad litem. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _ September 12, 2019 [sJ ee heey — 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28