Roe v. Grossmont Union High School District ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROE, a minor, by and through her Case No.: 19-CV-1966-CAB-BGS Guardian ad Litem, JUSTIN SLAGLE, 12 ORDER REGARDING PETITION Plaintiff, 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM 14 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL 15 DISTRICT et al., [Doc. No. 3.] 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Roe’s Petition for Appointment of 19 Guardian Ad Litem. [Doc. No. 3.] 20 The Petition states that Justin Slagle is the father of Minor Plaintiff Roe with legal 21 and physical custody, and requests the Court appoint Justin Slagle as guardian ad litem. 22 [Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 2-3.] It is unclear why it is necessary to separately appoint Mr. Slagle as 23 guardian ad litem in this lawsuit, when it appears that he is a general guardian who can sue 24 on his child’s behalf. See Doe ex rel. Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13- 25 CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (holding that parents’ 26 application for appointment as guardian ad litem was unnecessary, noting that “Rule 27 17(c)(1)(A) permits a ‘general guardian’ to sue in federal court on behalf of a minor, and 28 ‘[a] parent is a guardian who may so sue.’”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 1 Accordingly, the Petition to appoint Justin Slagle as the guardian ad litem for 2 || Plaintiff Roe is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner may re-file the petition 3 || with citation to legal authority and explanation as to why the appointment of a guardian ad 4 || litem is necessary in this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: October 11, 2019 € Z 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28