Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02139/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02139-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

KENNARD LEE DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES WALKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-0593-KJM-DB P 

KENNARD LEE DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES WALKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2139-KJM-DB P 

 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding in forma pauperis with the above civil 

rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 21, 2018, the court appointed Jennifer 

Brown to serve as guardian ad litem on plaintiff’s behalf, ECF No. 255,1 and appointed Donald 

Aquinas Lancaster, Jr. as limited purpose counsel for Ms. Brown on October 3, ECF No. 258. 

Due to Ms. Brown’s apparent abandonment of her responsibilities as plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, 

the court finds it necessary to appoint plaintiff a new guardian ad litem, Tiffany Starcevich. 

 

1

 All ECF citations refer to the docket in case number 2:10-cv-2139-KJM-DB P. 

Case 2:10-cv-02139-KJM-SCR Document 289 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 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 

2

I. BACKGROUND 

 The court held a telephonic status conference on December 13, 2018; Donald 

Lancaster, Jr. appeared on behalf of guardian ad litem Jennifer Brown, Chad Couchot appeared 

on behalf of defendant Robert Allen Haynes, and Matthew Wilson appeared on behalf of the 

remaining defendants. ECF No. 282. Mr. Lancaster raised the issue that he has been unable to 

contact Ms. Brown, and the court directed him to submit a status report outlining his attempts to 

contact her, to assist the court in deciding whether it is necessary to appoint plaintiff a new 

guardian ad litem. ECF No. 282. Soon after, Mr. Lancaster filed a notice stating he had 

attempted to telephone Ms. Brown on two separate occasions, but, presumably because her 

voicemail was full, her mobile telephone automatically disconnected. ECF No. 285. Mr. 

Lancaster also sent Ms. Brown a text message but did not receive a response. Id. Additionally, 

Mr. Lancaster reported that “[o]n or about December 07, 2018, Tiffany Starcevich (“Ms. 

Starcevich”), daughter-in-law to Mr. Davis, telephoned [Mr. Lancaster] and represented that Mr. 

Davis requested that she serve as his Guardian ad Litem.” Id. Mr. Lancaster attached to the 

notice a copy of an email he received from Ms. Starcevich in which she states she is plaintiff’s 

daughter-in-law and she maintains consistent communication with him. ECF No. 285-1. She 

also explains that plaintiff asked her to serve as his guardian ad litem and she is willing to do so. 

Id. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 “The federal court may . . . sua sponte appoint a next friend or guardian ad litem 

on behalf of the minor or incompetent.” Capacity to Sue or Defend, Rutter Group Prac. Guide 

Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7-B(3) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2)); see Wenger v. Canastota 

Central School Dist., 146 F.3d 123, 125 & n.1 (2nd Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by 

Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). The court is required to take into 

account “all factors relevant to the protection of the [incompetent’s] interests when selecting a 

guardian ad litem,” but is not required to depend on state law procedures. Gibbs ex rel. Gibbs v. 

Carnival Cruise Lines, 314 F.3d 125, 129 (3rd Cir. 2002); see also Estate of Escobedo v. City of 

Redwood City, No. C03-03204 MJJ, 2006 WL 571354, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2006). 

Case 2:10-cv-02139-KJM-SCR Document 289 Filed 01/30/19 Page 2 of 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 

3

 Here, Ms. Brown appears to have abandoned her duties as a guardian ad litem, and 

the court is entitled to replace her. See Fong Sik Leung v. Dulles, 226 F.2d 74, 82 (9th Cir. 1955)

(“As an officer of the court the guardian ad litem has full responsibility to assist the court ‘to 

secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination’ of the action. The court has inherent 

power to require its appointed officers to render such assistance. No representative of the court 

. . . has any right to continue in such capacity while hindering ascertainment of truth . . . .”). 

 The undersigned has considered plaintiff’s stated preferences, communicated 

through his filings,2 the statements of counsel for the current guardian ad litem, Mr. Lancaster, 

and the apparent willingness of Ms. Starcevich to serve in this role. Good cause appearing, the 

undersigned appoints Tiffany Starcevich, 3013 E. Beardsley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85050, as 

plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. 

 Additionally, the undersigned finds that the appointment of counsel is warranted 

for an initial limited representation of the new guardian ad litem, Ms. Starcevich, for the purposes 

of advising her regarding the posture of this case and possible steps going forward, including but 

not limited to participation in a court-convened settlement conference. Donald Aquinas 

Lancaster, Jr. was previously selected from the court’s pro bono attorney panel to represent 

Ms. Brown for such limited purpose, and the court understands Mr. Lancaster is prepared to now 

represent Ms. Starcevich in the same manner. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Tiffany Starcevich, daughter-in-law of plaintiff, is appointed to serve as 

guardian ad litem on plaintiff’s behalf. 

2. Donald Aquinas Lancaster, Jr. is appointed as limited purpose counsel on 

behalf of plaintiff’s new guardian ad litem in the above-entitled matters. Such appointment is for 

the limited purpose of advising the new guardian ad litem regarding the posture of this case and 

/// 

 

2

 Although the court has notified plaintiff that his pro se filings will be disregarded due to the 

appointment of a guardian ad litem and counsel, see ECF No. 257, the court is not blind to the 

fact that plaintiff has requested his guardian ad litem be replaced by Ms. Starcevich, ECF No. 

279. 

Case 2:10-cv-02139-KJM-SCR Document 289 Filed 01/30/19 Page 3 of 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 

4

possible steps going forward, including but not limited to participation in a telephonic status 

conference to be held on February 28, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. 

3. Appointed counsel shall notify Sujean Park at (916) 930-4278, or via email at 

spark@caed.uscourts.gov if he has any questions related to the appointment. 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall take all steps necessary to make the record in the 

above actions available to Mr. Lancaster. Any documents filed under seal shall be produced to 

Mr. Lancaster subject to a protective order limiting the use of those documents to attorneys-eyes 

only absent further order of court. 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on: 

Tiffany Starcevich 

3013 E. Beardsley Road, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85050. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 29, 2019. 

Case 2:10-cv-02139-KJM-SCR Document 289 Filed 01/30/19 Page 4 of 4