Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00146/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00146-5/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, et al. 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-00146-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are two dispositive motions filed by the only remaining 

Defendant in this case, Dr. Sudha D. Roa: a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution 

(Doc. 160) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 185). Plaintiff pro se Douglas 

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.) The Court has taken all of these motions under consideration, but does not 

issue a ruling at this time for the reasons described below. 

 In the course of its examination of Dr. Rao’s case dispositive motions, the Court 

has come across evidence that raises a serious question about Zolnierz’s competence that 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 209 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

is not inconsistent with some of Zolnierz’s behaviors in this action. Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), the Court orders that a hearing on the issue of 

Zolnierz’s competence to prosecute this action will be held on Friday, January 18, 2013, 

at 9:00 a.m. 

DISCUSSION

 Rule 17(c)(2) 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 precise standard that governs this determination is not entirely clear. For 

instance, the Second and Third Circuits have held that the district court has a duty to 

inquire into a pro se litigant’s competency when “there is some verifiable evidence of 

incompetence.” 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). Verifiable evidence consists 

of “evidence from an appropriate court of record or a relevant public agency indicating 

that the party had been adjudicated incompetent” or “evidence from a mental health 

professional demonstrating that the party is being or has been treated for mental illness of 

the type that would render him or her legally incompetent.” Ferrelli, 323 F.3d at 201. In 

one of the cases under consideration in Powell, there was a court finding in a criminal 

case that the plaintiff was incompetent to stand trial. 608 F.3d at 308. In the other, a letter 

from the plaintiff's doctor stating that plaintiff was not competent to stand trial. Id. at 310. 

Both pieces of evidence triggered an obligation for the court to at least inquire into the 

plaintiff's competency. 

Powell and Ferrelli distinguished “verifiable evidence” from “a litigant's bizarre 

behavior.” Id. at 307; Ferrelli, 323 F.3d at 201. The Ferrelli court specifically rejected a 

“substantial question” standard, where a plaintiff's “requests for counsel, coupled with 

her in-court statements, raised a substantial question regarding her mental competency . . 

. sufficient to trigger the district court's obligation to determine whether Rule 17(c) 

protection was warranted.” Id. The Second Circuit stated that “[n]either the language of 

Rule 17(c) nor the precedent of this court or other circuits imposes upon district judges an 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 209 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

obligation to inquire sua sponte into a pro se plaintiff's mental competence, even when 

the judge observes behavior that may suggest mental incapacity.” Id. 

The Ninth Circuit has not spoken as clearly as the Second and Third in adopting a 

“verifiable evidence” standard. In fact, a recent case used the language of “substantial 

question” to describe the trigger point for a district court's obligation to determine 

competency; however, the actual application of the standard in that case roughly 

approximates “verifiable evidence” standard, though it appears less is required. In Allen 

v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit stated 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.” Id. at 1153. The 

Ninth Circuit found “sufficient evidence of incompetence at least to require the district 

court to make a competency determination” where 

[t]he motion included [plaintiff’s] own sworn declaration and a sworn declaration 

of another inmate [that] explain that [plaintiff] is mentally ill and does not 

understand the district court’s orders. [Plaintiff] also attached a letter from the 

prison psychiatrist whose care he is under . . . . This letter states that [plaintiff] is 

diagnosed with Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia and is taking two 

psychotropic medications. 

Id. Requiring some documentary evidence from physicians is consistent with an older 

Ninth Circuit case, which held that the district court abused its discretion because “the 

court was clearly on notice that [plaintiff] claimed to be incompetent and his claim was 

made credible by official documentation.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 

796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). 

Up until this point, Zolnierz had failed to put forward official documentation of his 

mental problems to satisfy the Rule 17 standard. The documents he attached to his 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel do not contain any physician diagnoses or 

commentary. The discovery hearings held in September similarly lacked verifiable 

evidence. Zolnierz insisted over and over that “my mental competency’s in issue,” (Doc. 

173, 9/20/12 Hearing Trans., at 4:2), but he did not put forth any evidence from a 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 209 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

physician. At the September 20 hearing, he had his case worker doctor, Aaron Morgan, 

with him. Morgan, though, represented only that Zolnierz was on appropriate prescribed 

medication. (Id. at 10:17-25.) He did not comment or present any evidence that he found 

Zolnierz mentally unstable or unfit to stand trial—the evidence that has triggered the 

Rule 17 obligation in the case law. 

Rao, however, attached several documents to his Motion for Summary Judgment 

that do raise a “substantial question . . . regarding the mental competence of [the] party 

proceeding pro se.” Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153. First, 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, 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.) 

Second, the County Correctional Health Services physicians’ notes 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. 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 209 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

(Id.) (emphasis added). Chief among the troubling signs is that Zolnierz apparently was 

considered not competent to stand trial at some point. 

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 three pieces of evidence are sufficient to trigger the duty to 

have a Rule 17 competency hearing. The evidence is similar to that presented in Allen, 

where the plaintiff “had a letter from the prison psychiatrist whose care he is under . . . . 

This letter states that [plaintiff] is diagnosed with Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia 

and is taking two psychotropic medications.” 408 F.3d at 1153. While the Court is 

expressing no opinion on the actual determination of whether Zolnierz is competent to 

pursue his case, sufficient evidence has presented to require a competency hearing. 

CONCLUSION 

 The materials attached to Roa’s Motion for Summary Judgment include medical 

evidence that Zolnierz may not be competent to advance his case. Under Rule 17(c)(2), 

the Court’s duty is to conduct a hearing on the issue of Zolnierz’s competency. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties shall appear at a competency 

hearing on Friday, January 18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602 at the Sandra Day 

O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, where they will present evidence on 

whether Zolnierz is competent to prosecute his case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Andrew Jacobs of Snell & Wilmer appear 

telephonically at the hearing for purposes of potentially securing counsel. The Clerk of 

Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Jacobs at One South Church Avenue, 

Suite 1500, Tucson, AZ 85701-1630. Mr. Jacobs is directed to call chambers at (602) 

322-7650 five minutes before the scheduled hearing. 

 Dated this 7th day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-00146-GMS Document 209 Filed 01/07/13 Page 5 of 5