Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01496/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01496-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rick Alton Foley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01496-PHX-SMM (ESW)

ORDER 

The Court has considered Defendant Chatt’s Memorandum Re: Disability and 

Guardian Ad Litem (Doc. 58) filed on November 5, 2014, and Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendants’ Memorandum for Mrs. Chatt (Doc. 61) filed on November 17, 2014. 

Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the request to 

appoint Defendant Chatt’s son, James Contreras, as her guardian ad litem. The purpose 

of Rule 17(c) is to protect an incompetent person’s interests in prosecuting or defending a 

lawsuit. Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 2014). 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. United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 

(9th Cir. 1986). This includes (i) entering into binding contracts for the retention of 

counsel and expert witnesses and (ii) settling the claim on behalf of his or her ward. Id. 

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) (italics added); see also Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 

Case 2:13-cv-01496-SMM-ESW Document 63 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

F.2d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is the court’s order approving the settlement that 

vests the guardian ad litem with the legal power to enforce the agreement.”) (italics 

added). 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) (italics 

added). 

The declaration of Defendant Chatt’s treating physician, Dr. Frey, states that 

Defendant Chatt is “incapable of giving accurate and complete testimony in any lawsuit 

as her medical condition has profoundly altered her mental state and memories to such 

extent that she is totally disabled and unable to participate in the litigation process.” 

(Doc. 50, Exhibit A at p. 2) The Court finds from this uncontroverted documentation that 

Defendant Chatt is incompetent1

 and in need of a guardian ad litem. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED appointing Defendant Chatt’s son, James 

Contreras, as her guardian ad litem for purposes of this lawsuit. Mr. Contreras shall serve 

at no cost to Defendant Chatt. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten days of this Order, James 

Contreras must file a notice with the Court providing his current contact information, 

including an email address. 

Dated this 3rd day of December, 2014. 

1 For an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, the capacity to sue or be 

sued is determined by the law of the individual’s domicile. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). The 

State of Arizona is Defendant Chatt’s domicile. (Docs. 50, 58). In Arizona, an 

‘incompetent’ person is one who is unable to understand the nature and object of the 

proceedings or to assist in the case as a result of a mental illness, defect, or disability. 

Kelly R. v. Arizona Dept. of Econ. Sec., 137 P.3d 973, 978 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). 

Case 2:13-cv-01496-SMM-ESW Document 63 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 2