Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00243/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00243-4/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 14cv0243

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRAEL GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-00243-BAS-AGS

ORDER:

(1) REFERRING CASE TO PRO 

BONO PANEL FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

FOR COMPETENCY 

DETERMINATION; AND

(2) STAYING DR. KORNBLUTH’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF No. 58)

v.

ANTONIO NUNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Israel Garcia is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis. On January 31, 2014, he commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

alleging various claims against California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation personnel at Calipatria State Prison. Now, Plaintiff has one claim 

remaining. This claim alleges Defendant R. Kornbluth, a state physician, violated 

Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with proper 

medical care.

On October 13, 2016, in an unrelated criminal proceeding, the Superior Court 

of California for the County of Riverside determined Plaintiff is mentally 

incompetent. (ECF No. 59-1.) The state court ordered Plaintiff to be committed to

Case 3:14-cv-00243-BAS-AGS Document 62 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 14cv0243

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

Patton State Hospital or the other appropriate state mental health department for a 

maximum of three years. (Id.)

Then, on January 19, 2017, Dr. Kornbluth filed a motion for summary 

judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claim. (ECF No. 58.) That same day, Dr. 

Kornbluth filed a notice regarding Plaintiff’s possible incompetence—informing the 

Court of the state court’s mental incompetency determination. (ECF No. 59.) In light 

of this information, the Court will address Plaintiff’s competency and Dr. 

Kornbluth’s dispositive motion. 

I. COMPETENCY

Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the representation 

of minor or incompetent litigants. This rule provides in part:

A minor or an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed 

representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The 

court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate 

order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in 

an action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Rule 17(c)’s purpose “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). Based on this rule, the Ninth Circuit has “reasoned 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) (citing Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 

1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also, e.g., AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. 

Supp. 3d 1042, 1055 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (appointing guardian ad litem under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 17(c)(2) after determining retired brigadier general was incompetent 

following competency hearing).

//

Case 3:14-cv-00243-BAS-AGS Document 62 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 14cv0243

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

Here, a substantial question exists regarding the mental competence of a party 

proceeding pro se—Plaintiff. The state court’s October 13, 2016, mental 

incompetency determination indicates Plaintiff may be incompetent. In addition, 

Plaintiff filed a change of address on January 19, 2017, identifying the address for 

Patton State Hospital—a psychiatric hospital. (See ECF No. 60.) Yet, he also filed a 

change of address on January 30, 2017, identifying the address for the Robert Presley

Detention Center, which indicates he may no longer be committed to a state mental 

health institution. (See ECF No. 61.) Given the foregoing, the Court concludes it is 

appropriate to hold a hearing to determine whether Plaintiff is incompetent and, if so,

whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); Allen, 

408 F.3d at 1153.

At the same time, the Court recognizes the due process considerations 

implicated by undertaking a competency determination. If the Court determines 

Plaintiff is incompetent, it may, as mentioned, appoint a guardian ad litem. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). A guardian ad litem “is ‘[a] guardian, [usually] a lawyer, 

appointed by the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent or minor 

party.’ ” Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d at 1052 (alterations in original) (quoting Guardian, 

Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). A guardian ad litem has the authority to 

prosecute, control, and direct the control of the litigation. Id. The guardian may retain 

counsel and settle the claim on behalf of the incompetent party. United States v. 30.64 

Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 

805 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, although an incompetent litigant can proceed with the case 

through the appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment deprives the litigant

of “the right to control the litigation.” Thomas v. Humfield, 916 F.2d 1032, 1034 (5th 

Cir. 1990). In addition, an incompetency determination may subject a litigant to 

stigmatization. Id.

In light of Plaintiff’s possible incompetency and the due process considerations 

implicated by a competency determination, the Court finds it is appropriate to request 

Case 3:14-cv-00243-BAS-AGS Document 62 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 14cv0243

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

counsel for Plaintiff for the competency hearing. This district’s General Order No. 

596 adopted the Plan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

California for the Representation of Pro Se Litigants in Civil Cases (“Pro Bono 

Plan”). See General Order No. 596, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/

GeneralOrders/Lists/General%20Orders/Attachments/107/GO_596.pdf. The Pro 

Bono Plan provides a series of factors for this Court to consider when determining if 

a case is appropriate for the appointment of counsel. See Pro Bono Plan at 1. It also 

provides that nothing in the plan “prevents the assigned judge from appointing 

counsel if it is apparent from the pleadings or other materials before the Court that 

the pro se civil plaintiff has mental or other disabilities substantially interfering with 

his or her ability to present the factual and legal claims and making an appropriate 

application for appointment of counsel.” Id. An appointment of counsel is appropriate 

in this case based on (i) the substantial risk Plaintiff is incompetent and (ii) the 

assistance counsel can provide the Court with undertaking a competency 

determination. See id. (providing whether appointment is appropriate may depend on 

“the degree to which the ends of justice will be served by appointment of counsel,

including the extent to which the Court may benefit from the appointment” and “any 

other factors deemed appropriate”). 

Accordingly, concurrently with the filing of this Order, the Court will submit 

the appropriate request for an appointment of counsel for Plaintiff for the competency 

hearing to the district’s pro bono coordinator. See Pro Bono Plan at 2. In addition, 

given the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it is appropriate to initially direct 

the request to pro bono panel member San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program. That 

said, if this Court is unable to appoint counsel for Plaintiff for the competency 

hearing, it will nonetheless hold the hearing to determine whether Plaintiff is 

competent and, if necessary, to issue an appropriate order under Rule 17(c)(2).

//

//

Case 3:14-cv-00243-BAS-AGS Document 62 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 14cv0243

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. STAY OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION

The Ninth Circuit has “held that if an ‘incompetent person is unrepresented, 

the court should not enter a judgment which operates as a judgment on the merits 

without complying with Rule 17(c).’ ” Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153 (quoting Krain, 880 

F.2d at 1121); see also Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 203 

(2d Cir. 2003) (noting “a judgment entered against a mentally incompetent defendant 

not represented by a guardian or a guardian ad litem may be subject to collateral 

attack at a later date”). Here, because there is a substantial question as to Plaintiff’s 

competency, the Court will stay Dr. Kornbluth’s motion for summary judgment. See 

Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153. Once the Court resolves the issue of Plaintiff’s competency, 

the Court will issue a new briefing schedule for Dr. Kornbluth’s motion.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court will hold a competency hearing to 

determine whether Plaintiff is competent to proceed with this case. However, the 

Court will first endeavor to appoint counsel for Plaintiff for the competency hearing

by referring this case to the district’s pro bono panel. If the Court is unable to appoint 

counsel for Plaintiff for the competency hearing, the Court will issue an order setting 

the hearing and providing further guidance to Plaintiff. In addition, the Court STAYS

Dr. Kornbluth’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58) because of Plaintiff’s 

potential incompetency. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-00243-BAS-AGS Document 62 Filed 02/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5