Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02780/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02780-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY A. JURGENS, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

California Highway Patrol Officer M. 

DUBENDORF, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2780-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jeffrey Jurgens Jr., born in 1991, moves to appoint his mother, Joanna 

Jurgens, as his guardian ad litem in this case. No party filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition. After considering the materials and arguments submitted with his request, as 

announced from the bench on October 1, 2015, and for the following reasons, the court GRANTS 

the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The court summarized the allegations of Jeffrey Jurgens’s complaint in a previous 

order. See Order Aug. 17, 2015 (Prev. Order), ECF No. 17.1 In sum, he alleges he sustained 

several injuries at the hands of the defendant California Highway Patrol officers following a high-

 1 Jurgens v. Dudendorf, No. 14-02780, 2015 WL 4910536 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2015). 

Case 2:14-cv-02780-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

speed chase. Id. at 1–2. He alleges four claims for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Compl. ¶¶ 34–57, ECF No. 1. Officer Duryee moved to dismiss, ECF No. 9, and in 

opposition, Jeffrey Jurgens filed a petition to appoint his mother as guardian ad litem, ECF No. 

13. The court found Ms. Jurgens had not provided an adequate explanation of her son’s inability 

to appear on his own behalf and therefore found she lacked standing as a next friend. Prev. Order 

at 6. The court also denied the petition to appoint Ms. Jurgens as her son’s guardian ad litem 

because the court had insufficient information to conclude he was incompetent or had given 

consent, but did so without prejudice to this motion. Id. at 7–8. 

Several exhibits accompany the current motion. The first includes a June 30, 2015 

tentative order of the Sacramento County Superior Court in People v. Jurgens, No. 13F07880. 

Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 18-1. The order documents that Jeffrey Jurgens, the plaintiff here, was 

tentatively found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to Atascadero State 

Hospital.2 Id. at 1. The superior court adopted this tentative order as final on July 15, 2015, with 

modifications not relevant here. Id. at 2. 

The second exhibit contains Jeffrey Jurgens’s medical records from Atascadero 

State Hospital. Mot. Ex. B, ECF No. 18-2. This exhibit is the subject of a request to file under 

seal, which the court addresses more specifically below. 

The third exhibit is Ms. Jurgens’s declaration. Mot. Ex. C, ECF No. 18-3. She 

declares that she is Jeffrey Jurgens’s biological mother and has served as his primary caregiver 

since he was born. Id. ¶ 1–2. She is familiar with his medical history and has worked as a 

Clinical Supervisor for the University of California Davis Medical Group for seventeen years. Id.

¶ 4. She interacts and works with mentally ill patients. Id. She declares that Jeffrey Jurgens is 

currently confined in the Atascadero State Hospital and for this reason in unable to personally 

participate in his case. Id. ¶ 5. Before this case was filed, she spoke with him about “taking his 

 2

 The case included three charges: violation of California Vehicle Code section 10851(a) 

(theft of a vehicle); violation of California Penal Code section 496d(a) (receiving a stolen 

vehicle); and violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2(a) (fleeing a pursuing police officer in a 

vehicle). 

Case 2:14-cv-02780-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

place” and “speaking for him” in this lawsuit, and as the case has progressed, she has explained it 

to him to the extent he can understand. Id. ¶ 7. On September 15, 2015, she visited him again, 

and with her was his criminal defense attorney, Beau Weiner. Id. ¶ 8. She explained “that the 

judge wants to make sure that he knows that I am asking to be the person to take part in this 

lawsuit on his behalf, and that he agrees with it.” Id. Jeffrey said he understood and agreed, and 

signed a declaration to that effect, which is the fourth exhibit to the current motion. Id. ¶ 9. Ms. 

Jurgens believes she is able to prosecute this case on his behalf. Id. ¶ 11.

The fourth exhibit, as noted above, is Jeffrey Jurgens’s own declaration. Mot. 

Ex. D, ECF No. 18-4. It documents his understanding that this case is pending against the 

defendant officers, id. ¶ 3, that he understands his mother has moved to serve as his guardian ad 

litem, id. ¶ 4, and that he consents to her appointment because he cannot leave the state hospital, 

id. ¶¶ 5–7. 

The final supporting exhibit is the declaration of Jeffrey Jurgens’s father, Jeffrey 

Jurgens Sr. Mot. Ex. E, ECF No. 18-5. Mr. Jurgens Sr. reports his awareness and approval of 

Ms. Jurgens’s motion to be appointed as his son’s guardian ad litem, and he believes she will 

defend his son’s interests well. See generally id.

II. REQUEST TO SEAL 

The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records 

be sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). In the Ninth Circuit, courts faced 

with requests to seal or redact begin “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Ordinarily, the party seeking to seal or redact a document “bears the burden of overcoming this 

strong presumption” by “articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 

public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 and Hagestad v. Tragesser, 

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-02780-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/19/15 Page 3 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that the traditional compelling-reasons 

standard applies only “to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and 

related attachments.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 and San Jose 

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 

1999)). Only “good cause” to withhold the information need be shown if the information in 

question is attached to a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Although the 

good-cause standard is less exacting than the compelling-reasons standard, see id., the party 

seeking to seal or redact a record must show what “specific prejudice or harm will result if no 

protective order is granted,” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. 

Here, the court need not decide whether the compelling reasons standard or the 

good-cause standard applies to this motion; under either standard, the public interest in disclosure 

of the medical records in question is outweighed by Jeffrey Jurgens’s privacy interests. These 

documents record numerous medical and psychological examinations and diagnoses, and their 

public disclosure would unnecessarily broadcast detailed, private, and sensitive information about 

Jeffrey Jurgens’s mental and physical health. See, e.g., Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue 

Shield of N.J., 663 F.3d 1124, 1135–36 (10th Cir. 2011) (applying the standard that a proponent 

of a request to seal must “articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the 

public of access to the records that inform our decision-making process” and finding documents 

containing personal and private medical information may be filed under seal); San Ramon Reg’l 

Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 10-02258, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

10, 2011) (sua sponte sealing confidential medical records presented in the context of a motion to 

dismiss). The request to file under seal is granted. 

III. MOTION TO APPOINT A GUARDIAIN AD LITEM 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) requires a court to appoint a guardian ad 

litem or take “whatever measures it deems proper to protect an incompetent person during 

litigation.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cnty., State 

of Wash. (Acres), 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). The court is under a “legal obligation” to 

consider whether an incompetent person is adequately protected. Id. “The obligation of the court 

Case 2:14-cv-02780-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/19/15 Page 4 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

to appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to Rule 17(c) does not arise until after a determination of 

incompetence has been made by the court in which the issue is raised.” Forte v. Cnty. of Merced,

No. 11-0318, 2013 WL 3282957, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2013) (citing Ferrelli, 323 F.3d at 

201). 

A person’s capacity to sue is measured by the standard of the law of his domicile, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1), here California state law, but federal law governs questions of 

appropriate procedure, Estate of Escobedo v. City of Redwood City, No. 03-03204, 2006 WL 

571354, at *7–9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2006) (citing, inter alia, Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 314 

F.3d 125, 134–35 (3rd Cir. 2002) and M.S. v. Wermers, 557 F.2d 170, 174 n.4 (8th Cir. 1977)). 

“In California, a party is incompetent if he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature or 

consequences of the proceeding, or is unable to assist counsel in the preparation of the case.” 

Golden Gate Way, 2012 WL 4482053, at *2 (citing, inter alia, In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 

1180, 1186 (2001) and In re Sara D., 87 Cal. App. 4th 661, 666–67 (2001)). In most cases, a 

guardian will not be appointed for an adult unless the person gives consent or upon notice and a 

hearing. See, e.g., Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Stewart, No. 09-04458, 2012 WL 4482053, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012); Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 562 F.3d 1186, 1188 (D.C. Cir. 

2009). 

Here, the court concludes Jeffrey Jurgens lacks the capacity to understand the 

nature and consequences of the proceeding and is unable to assist counsel in the preparation of 

this case. First, he was recently found not guilty by reason of insanity in state criminal 

proceedings. This determination is not alone a sufficient indication of his competency, but is 

relevant nonetheless. See Prev. Order at 4–5 (citing Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 

1192, 1198 (9th Cir. 2001) and Hoang Minh Tran v. Gore, No. 10CV2682, 2013 WL 878771, at 

*5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)). Second, the court has reviewed the medical records attached to his 

motion, which contain detailed and recent discussions of his mental condition. This evidence 

supports the conclusion that he would not be able to meaningfully consult with an attorney and 

understand this case. 

Case 2:14-cv-02780-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/19/15 Page 5 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6

The evidence submitted with Jeffrey Jurgens’s motion also shows that he knows 

his mother wishes to serve as his guardian in this case and that he consents to her appointment. 

His declaration, his attorney’s presence at the time he gave consent, and his father’s consent are 

evidence his decision is voluntary. The court is also satisfied that given Ms. Jurgens’s 

relationship to Jeffrey Jurgens and her work experience with mentally ill patients, she is qualified 

to serve as Jeffrey Jurgens’s guardian ad litem and advance his interests in this case. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The request to file Exhibit B to the motion to appoint a guardian ad litem is 

GRANTED. 

The motion to appoint a guardian ad litem is GRANTED. Joanna Jurgens is 

appointed as Jeffrey Jurgens’s guardian ad litem. 

This order resolves ECF No. 18. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 16, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02780-KJM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/19/15 Page 6 of 6