Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05938/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05938-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAOMI CASTILLO-RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, and DOES 1 to

100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-5938 EMC

ORDER GRANTING RAMIREZ’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF NEXT FRIEND OR

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(Docket Nos. 53-54)

Plaintiff Naomi Castillo-Ramirez is a minor, currently fourteen years of age. See CastilloRamirez Decl. ¶ 3. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), “[a] minor . . . 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 . . . who is

unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Currently pending before the Court is the ex

parte application of Maricela Ramirez, in which she asks to be appointed the guardian ad litem or

next friend of Plaintiff in order to prosecute a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf. Ms. Ramirez is Plaintiff’s

aunt on her mother’s side. See Castillo-Ramirez Decl. ¶ 3; Ramirez-Cruz Decl. ¶ 3.

In determining “what factors or procedures to use when appointing the guardian ad litem” or

next friend, a court focuses on “the protection of the [minor’s] interests.” Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise

Lines, 314 F.3d 125, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Estate of Richard Escobedo v. City of Redwood

City, No. C03-03204 MJJ, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457, at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2006) (noting

the same); 4-17 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 17.21[3][a] (noting the same); cf. United States v. 30.64

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 59 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that “appointment must normally be left to

the sound discretion of the trial court”).

In the instant case, Ms. Ramirez has provided declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s

mother to support her application for appointment as next friend or guardian ad litem. In the

declarations, both Plaintiff and her mother state that they gave “verbal authorization” to Ms.

Ramirez to file a lawsuit on Plaintiff’s behalf based on the wrongful death of Plaintiff’s father. 

Castillo-Ramirez Decl. ¶2; Ramirez-Cruz Decl. ¶ 2. Both Plaintiff and her mother also indicate that

they wish Ms. Ramirez to be appointed a next friend or guardian ad litem for Plaintiff because Ms.

Ramirez “is a person of highest integrity and is acting in good faith to protect [Plaintiff’s] interests.” 

Castillo-Ramirez Decl. ¶ 2; Ramirez-Cruz Decl. ¶ 2. In support of this statement, Plaintiff and her

mother maintain that Plaintiff and Ms. Ramirez have a close relationship; that Ms. Ramirez has

visited Plaintiff at least once a year since 1996; and that Ms. Ramirez has demonstrated concern for

Plaintiff’s well-being as demonstrated by her providing clothing and money for Plaintiff at least

once every two years. See Castillo-Ramirez Decl. ¶ 3; Ramirez-Cruz Decl. ¶ 3.

In addition to declarations from Plaintiff and her mother, Ms. Ramirez has also provided

other documents to support her application for appointment as next friend or guardian ad litem. For

example, Ms. Ramirez has provided photographs that she has taken of Plaintiff over the years

(accompanied by brief statements about the photographs -- e.g., that she bought the clothing Plaintiff

is wearing in the picture); bank statements reflecting transfers of money to Plaintiff’s mother; and

telephone records reflecting calls made to Mexico. None of these documents, however, has been

authenticated; indeed, none of the documents has attached to a declaration submitted by Ms.

Ramirez under the penalty of perjury. Accordingly, the Court gives these documents no weight.

That being said, based on the declarations submitted by Plaintiff and her mother, the Court

concludes that Ms. Ramirez has made an adequate showing that she will act in good faith to protect

Plaintiff’s interests such that she should be appointed next friend or guardian ad litem. Accordingly,

the Court GRANTS Ms. Ramirez’s application. Henceforth, for purposes of this lawsuit only, Ms.

Ramirez is the next friend or guardian ad litem of Plaintiff.

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 59 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

This does not mean, however, that the lawsuit may proceed at this juncture because “a parent

or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v.

County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Consistent with the Court’s prior order of

June 8, 2010, proceedings in this case are stayed until Ms. Ramirez retains a lawyer and has that

lawyer make an appearance in this case on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Docket No. 51 (order). The Court

shall give Ms. Ramirez 90 days to retain a lawyer and have the lawyer make an appearance in this

case on Plaintiff’s behalf. Ms. Ramirez is forewarned that, if no lawyer makes an appearance in this

case on Plaintiff’s behalf by that date, then the Court may dismiss the case in its entirety.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 53 and 54.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 59 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAOMI CASTILLO-RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, and DOES 1 to

100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-5938 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Naomi Castillo-Ramirez 

2113 W. Steele Lane 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

707-568-0348 

PRO SE

Maricela Ramirez 

2113 W. Steele Lane 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

PRO SE

Dated: July 15, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ Leni Doyle 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 59 Filed 07/15/10 Page 4 of 4