Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00146/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00146-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Douglas John Zolnierz, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County; 

Fulton Brock; Don Stapley; Andrew 

Kunasek; Max Wilson; Mary Rose Wilcox; 

Board of Maricopa County Supervisors; 

Betty Adams, Director of Maricopa County 

Correctional Health Services; Dr. R. 

Venkatabalaji, Director of Jail Medical 

Review Board, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-00146-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pursuant to its Order of January 7, 2013, the Court held a hearing on January 18, 

2013, to determine whether Plaintiff pro se Douglas Zolnierz was competent to prosecute 

his case. Zolnierz filed a Motion (Doc. 210) on January 17, 2013, that contained various 

documents relating to his competency. The Court grants his motion to the extent it was a 

Motion for Inspection of the Reports and Records, but denies it to the extent Zolnierz 

seeks a subpoena for other medical records. The Court has determined that Zolnierz 

currently lacks the necessary competence to pursue the action and appoints Jack A. 

Vincent and Christine A. Hammerle of Perkins Coie as guardians ad litem for Zolnierz 

for the reasons described below. The Court also addresses the current outstanding 

motions. 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

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 

I. Legal Standard 

 Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to “appoint 

a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or 

incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” The Ninth Circuit has held that 

that “when a substantial question exists regarding the mental competence of a party 

proceeding pro se, the proper procedure is for the district court to conduct a hearing to 

determine competence, so a guardian ad litem can be appointed, if necessary.” Allen v. 

Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Usually, there is some documentary 

evidence of a pro se litigant’s incompetence that triggers the Court’s obligation. See id.

(declarations and statements from the plaintiff, his cellmate, and prison psychologist); 

Powell v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 2012); Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care 

Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 2003). 

But the fact that the Court holds a hearing on competency does not mandate a 

finding of competency. The standard for determining competency is supplied by the law 

of the plaintiff’s state of residence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1); Adamson v. Hayes, No. 

CV–05–2286–PHX–JWS (LOA) 2010 WL 5069885 at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2010); 

Thomas v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1035 (5th Cir. 1990). Arizona law finds a person 

incompetent when “as a result of a mental illness, defect or disability a [litigant] is unable 

to understand the nature and object of the proceeding or to assist in the [case].” Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. § 13-4501(2); see also Kelly R. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 213 Ariz. 17, 22, 

137 P.3d 973, 978 (Ct. App. 2006). The procedure for determining competence, however, 

is governed by federal law. See Adamson, 2012 WL 5069885 at *4; Thomas, 916 F.2d at 

1035. The ultimate decision of whether to appoint a guardian ad litem rests with the 

sound discretion of the district court and is made on a case-by-case basis. M.K. through 

Hall v. Harter, 716 F. Supp. 1333, 1335 (E.D. Cal. 1989) (citing United States v. 30.64 

Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 806 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

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 

II. Finding of Incompetency and Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

The Court concludes that Zolnierz lacks the competency necessary to conduct his 

case. Several pieces of evidence inform that decision. The Court notes that Zolnierz’s 

manner and comments throughout this case have shown that Zolnierz is often unable to 

communicate effectively with the Court, the parties, and witnesses. Moreover, he has 

spoken of seeing devils and other hallucinations that give him instructions. When he has 

appeared before the Court, Zolnierz does not appear to have a grasp on the nature and 

purpose of the proceedings. While a litigant’s “bizarre behavior” does not always 

necessitate a finding of incompetence, see Ferrelli, 323 F.3d at 201, “the trial judge is 

entitled to gauge a party’s competence by [his] personal conduct in court”, Smith v. Rabb, 

95 Ariz. 49 56-57, 386 P.2d 649, 654 (1963). Zolnierz himself has insisted throughout 

this case that “my mental competency’s in issue,” (Doc. 173, 9/20/12 Hearing Trans., at 

4:2) The Court therefore relies extensively on its own observations of Zolnierz over the 

course of this case. 

 Those observations are strengthened by the objective evidence of Zolnierz’s 

incompetence. For a period of four months in his underlying criminal trial, Zolnierz was 

adjudged incompetent to stand trial. (Doc. 210 at 66-69, 78-82.) An adjudication of 

incompetence to stand trial is a strong signal of incompetence for purposes of Rule 17. 

See Powell, 680 F.3d at 310. Zolnierz was eventually deemed competent to stand trial 

after treatment in the Maricopa County Correctional Health Services Restoration to 

Competency Program. (Id.) Nevertheless, his restoration to competency occurred only 

after close monitoring and treatment by state officials over the period of months, which 

does not appear to reflect the current situation. 

 Furthermore, county prison officials raised serious questions about Zolnierz’s 

mental health. County doctors contacted his provider, Magellan Health Services of 

Arizona, who reported that Zolnierz has schizoaffective disorder, and paranoid 

personality disorder. (Doc. 186-7 at 21-22; Doc. 186-8 at 1.) The January 20, 2009 report 

lists the following symptoms: paranoia, persecutory ideations, auditory hallucinations, 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

manic episodes, depression, pressured speech, racing thoughts, little sleep, and mood 

liability. (Id.) It also states that, when feeling well, he is largely able to present himself in 

an appropriate manner, but that he fails to attend scheduled appointments. (Id.) County 

Correctional Health Services physicians’ notes also show increasing irregularities. On 

May 18, 2009, the doctor made a note that “psychotic features are become more evident 

and problematic.” (Doc. 186-5 at 19-20; Doc. 186-6 at 1.) Most importantly, the June 22, 

2009 report states that the 

patient presents a challenging array of medical, mental, and interpersonal 

problems. He can be demanding at times, and sometimes possibly stubborn. 

This writer wonders if there are signs of Dementia. He has a substantial 

mental health history that places him at risk (additional risk) when 

considering his latest request for . . . treatment of Hepatitis C. If indeed the 

patient wishes to pursue treatment such products . . . [are] agents with 

significant documented risks of severe depression and suicide, [which] in 

this writer’s opinion should be take an antidepressant. The patient must 

show commitment to health care at this facility, for example, at least 6 

weeks of continuous cooperative alliance with treatment provider. Keep in 

mind the patient was considered not competent to stand trial without 

training and treatment. Is he competent to decide his medical care? Perhaps 

his family and attorney should be involved with discussions around the 

appropriateness and safety of medical options for Hepatitis. 

(Id.) (emphasis added). Finally, the CHS records indicate that Zolnierz was placed on 

suicide watch at the CHS psychiatric unit on January 21-24, 2009. (Doc. 186-4 at 3-7.) 

 Taken together these observations and official documentary evidence establish 

that Zolnierz “is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceeding or to assist 

in the [case].” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4501(2). Pursuant to Rule 17(c), the Court appoints 

Jack A. Vincent and Christine A. Hammerle of Perkins Coie, 2901 North Central 

Avenue, Suite 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, well-respected and experienced attorneys, as 

guardians ad litem for Zolnierz in this case. Their phone number is 602-351-8000. Mr. 

Vincent and Ms. Hammerle have no known interests adverse to Zolnierz and must act to 

protect the Zolnierz’s best interests in this litigation. The Court finds that the appointment 

of guardians ad litem in this § 1983 action is necessary in the interest of justice, and that 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

Zolnierz is financially unable to obtain and compensate adequate representation and a 

guardian ad litem. 

The Court notes, however, that these are unique facts in a unique setting. A litigant 

cannot require the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem just be showing up and 

acting in an incompetent manner—a case by case evaluation of conduct over a period of 

time, the quantity and quality of medical evidence, and the nature of the claim all play a 

role. 

III. Role of the Guardian Ad Litem

 Generally, the role of the guardian ad litem in a federal lawsuit “is to protect the 

interests of the incompetent person.” Richards v. Duke University, 166 Fed. App’x. 595, 

599 (3d Cir. 2006). A guardian ad litem is not appointed to serve as counsel but to “act 

for the [ward] in the cause, with authority to engage counsel, file suit, and to prosecute, 

control, and direct the litigation.” Noe v. True, 507 F.2d 9, 12 (6th Cir. 1974) (citing 

Fong Silk Leung v. Dulles, 226 F.2d 74, 82 (9th Cir. 1955)). Importantly, the appointment 

of a guardian ad litem “deprives the litigant of the right to control the litigation.” Thomas 

v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1990). “A guardian ad litem is authorized to 

act on behalf of his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of the 

specific litigation.” Id. As Zolnierz’s guardians ad litem, Mr. Vincent and Ms. Hammerle 

may enter into “binding contracts for the retention of counsel and expert witnesses and 

may settle the claim on behalf of his ward [subject to court approval].” Id. at 1033 

(quoting United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

After appointing a guardian ad litem, a district court “maintains a continuing 

obligation to supervise the guardian ad litem's work.” Neilson v. Colgate–Palmolive 

Co., 199 F.3d 642, 652 (2nd Cir. 1999). The district court may remove the guardian ad 

litem. Hull by Hull v. United States, 53 F.3d 1125, 1127 n.1 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that 

parties seeking to challenge the decisions of a guardian ad litem have a remedy of 

applying to the court to have the guardian ad litem removed or to have another guardian 

ad litem appointed). 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 5 of 7
- 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 

CONCLUSION 

 As the Court mentioned at the hearing, Zolnierz has only one claim remaining in 

this case: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Dr. Sudha Roa for cruel and 

unusual punishment. The Court will not entertain motions on claims that have been 

dismissed or other extraneous matters. At this point in the litigation, discovery is closed 

and there are two pending dispositive motions. Dr. Roa has filed a Motion to Dismiss for 

Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 160) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 185). 

 Zolnierz has filed a number of motions that address his attempts to produce 

evidence to defeat those motions: a Motion to Appoint Expert (Doc. 108), Motion to 

Defer Summary Judgment (Doc. 110), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 182), 

Motion for In Camera Inspection Order (Doc. 191), Motion to Compel (Doc. 192), 

Motion to Strike (Doc. 194), and Motion for Ruling (Doc. 201). Most of these motions 

were filed after the expiration of the Court’s discovery deadline of September 28, 2012. 

(Doc. 77 ¶ 1.) Zolnierz has not filed a Response to Roa’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

but has filed two Motions for Extension of Time to File Judgment on the Pleadings and 

Summary Judgment. (Docs. 202, 204.) 

Because the Court has appointed Mr. Vincent and Ms. Hammerle as Zolnierz’s 

guardians ad litem and empowered them to act on behalf of Zolnierz, Dr. Roa’s Motion 

to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 160) is denied. Zolnierz’s several motions 

relating to discovery are denied without prejudice to his guardians refilling those motions 

they believe necessary to advancing Zolnierz’s case. Thus, the only outstanding motion is 

Dr. Roa’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court resets the date for response to 

February 25, 2013, and the deadline for the Reply is March 14, 2013. If, after reviewing 

the discovery and case file, the guardians have good cause to re-open discovery on a 

limited basis or alter those deadlines, they may file a motion. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

 1. Zolnierz’s Motion (Doc. 210) is granted in part and denied in part.

 2. Jack Vincent and Christine Hammerle are hereby appointed as guardians ad 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

litem for Zolnierz in this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order 

to Mr. Vincent and Ms. Hammerle at Perkins Coie LLP, 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 

2000, P.O. Box 400, Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400. 

 3. Dr. Roa’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 160) is DENIED.

 4. Zolnierz’s Motion to Appoint Expert (Doc. 108), Motion to Defer 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 110), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 182), Motion for 

In Camera Inspection Order (Doc. 191), Motion to Compel (Doc. 192), Motion to Strike 

(Doc. 194), and Motion for Ruling (Doc. 201), and two Motions for Extension of Time 

to File Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment (Docs. 202, 204) are denied 

without prejudice. 

 5. Zolnierz shall have until 5:00 P.M. on February 25, 2013 to file responsive 

memoranda to Dr. Roa’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 185). Dr. Roa shall have 

until 5:00 P.M. on March 14, 2013 to file a reply memorandum. 

 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 211 Filed 01/23/13 Page 7 of 7