Bennett v. Santa Clara County Superior Court ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID BENNETT, Case No. 22-cv-07673-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND MOTION 9 v. FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PRELIMINARY 10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY COURT, et al., RESTRAINING ORDER; FINAL 11 EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY Defendants. FILLING 12 Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 31 13 Plaintiff is in custody at Atascadero State Hospital (“ASH”) and proceeding without an 14 attorney. He filed this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was an inmate at the Yolo 15 County Jail. On February 6, 2023, his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was 16 denied because he had more than sufficient funds in his trust account to pay the filing fee, and he 17 was ordered to pay the filing fee within 28 days. (ECF No. 11.) The deadline was extended three 18 times, and the new deadline to pay the fee is December 4, 2023. (ECF Nos. 15, 23, 28.) The 19 Court also denied Plaintiff’s three motions for a guardian ad litem under Rule 17( c) of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 28.) 21 Plaintiff has filed a fourth motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem, as well as 22 “objections” to the denial of his prior three. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.) Rule 17(c)(2) provides: 23 A minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly 24 appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue 25 another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action. 26 The decision whether to appoint a guardian ad litem is “left to the sound discretion the trial court.” 27 Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). 1 In denying his prior motions, the Court explained the only task Plaintiff needs to perform 2 at this stage of the case is to pay his filing fee. (ECF No. 28 at 2:4-5.) The Court denied the 3 motions because Plaintiff did not submit or medical or court records showing he is not competent 4 to pay the fee, or prosecute this case generally, and his pleadings and motions showed he is 5 competent to do so insofar as he had paid the filing fee in a different case recently, pursued 6 administrative procedures for seeking payment of the fee in this case when he was in the Yolo 7 County Jail, and presented coherent allegations regarding his claims. (Id. at 2-3.) 8 Plaintiff attaches to his present motion court records from his state court criminal 9 proceedings and medical records from ASH. (ECF No. 30.) The state court records indicate he 10 was committed to state hospital and involuntarily medicated because his conduct prior to and since 11 being in custody1 “presents, as a result of mental disorder or mental defect, a demonstrated danger 12 of inflicting substantial physical harm on others.” (ECF No. 30 at 24:24-15.) These records do 13 not explain the mental disorder Plaintiff suffers. Moreover, being a danger of inflicting physical 14 harm on others does not, on its face, render Plaintiff incapable of paying the filing fee or 15 prosecuting a civil case such as this one. 16 The medical records Plaintiff submitted consist of recent treatment plan by a psychiatrist at 17 ASH indicating Plaintiff has “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder,” 18 “substance abuse disorder,” and “antisocial personality disorder.” (Id. at 40.) The psychiatrist 19 stated Plaintiff is “pleasant and cooperative” with “no behavioral problems,” is “alert and 20 oriented,” does not “respond to internal stimuli or have delusional thinking.” (Id. at 40-41.) The 21 plan further indicated Plaintiff passed a “Revised Competency Assessment Instrument” on August 22 9, 2023, and a “Clinical Staffing” criterion on September 7, 2023, and there are “no barriers” to 23 Plaintiff’s progress. (Id. at 42.) In addition, Plaintiff identified his “strengths” are “reading, 24 writing, journaling,” and the psychiatrist stated Plaintiff is “adjusting well” and “interacting 25 appropriately” at the state hospital, and his suicide risk is “low.” (Id. at 40-41.) These records do 26 not suggest Plaintiff’s mental health problems render him incapable of proceeding with this case 27 1 on his own. He is alert and oriented, not delusional, adjusting well at his present place of 2 || confinement, and he himself describes his strengths as reading and writing, which are necessary 3 skills for civil litigation. 4 These records and Plaintiff's papers, both in this case and other cases cited, discussed in 5 || the Court’s order denying his prior motions for appointment of a guardian ad litem (ECF No. 28 at 6 || 2-3) confirm the Court’s conclusion in that order that Plaintiff is capable of paying the filing fee 7 and prosecuting this case, at least at this stage. (Ud. at 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's current motion 8 for appointment of a guardian ad litem is DENIED. 9 Plaintiff also seeks an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction or temporary 10 || restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendant California Governor Newsom. (ECF No. 31.) The 11 Court cannot grant the requested injunctive relief because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or 12 || been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and also Plaintiff has not provided notice of the 5 13 || motion to Governor Newsom (who has not been served) or explained why not. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 65(d)(2), 65(b)(1). The motion for an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction or a 3 15 || TRO is DENIED. a 16 On or before December 28, 2023, Plaintiff shall pay the full filing fee and 3 17 || administrative fee ($402). If he does not do so, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. S 18 || No further extension of time will be allowed absent a showing of good cause. 19 Plaintiff shall not file any further motions for appointment of a guardian ad litem until 20 after: (1) he pays the filing fee and (2) the Court has issued an order following initial review of the 21 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 1, 2023 24 25 lua ath □□□ JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 26 United States District Judge 27 28