Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL PALOMARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ARVIN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO 

APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(Docs. 31, 34)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s petition to appoint his niece, Violeta Negrete Garcia

(Garcia), as his guardian ad litem. (Doc. 31). The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit supplemental 

briefing so that his petition complies with Local Rule 202(c). On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 

supplement. (Doc. 34). Defendants have not filed an opposition to the petition, and the time to do 

so has passed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a representative of an incompetent 

person may litigate on that person’s behalf. Fed R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “The court is under a ‘legal 

obligation’ to consider whether an incompetent person is adequately protected.” Jurgens v. 

Dubendorf, No. 2:14-cv-2780-KJM-DAD, 2015 WL 6163464, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) 

(citing United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986)); Davis v. Walker, 

745 F.3d 1303, 1310 n.6 (9th Cir. 2014). However, the obligation of the court to appoint a

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 35 Filed 04/07/23 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

guardian ad litem pursuant to Rule 17(c) does not arise until after it is determined that the person 

to be represented is, in fact, incompetent. AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 

1050 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 

The standard for determining competency is supplied by the law of the plaintiff’s 

domicile. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). Under California law, a party is incompetent “if he or she 

lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding, or is unable to 

assist counsel in the preparation of the case.” Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Stewart, 2012 WL 

4482053, *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (citing In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1186 

(2001)); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372 (“When . . . a person who lacks legal capacity to 

make decisions . . . is a party, that person shall appear either by a guardian or conservator of the 

estate or by a guardian ad litem[.]”) Typically,“ a guardian will not be appointed for an adult 

unless the person gives consent or upon notice and a hearing.” Jurgens, 2015 WL 6163464, *3. 

Accord Golden Gate Way, 2012 WL 4482053, *3 (relying on medical records and the Court’s 

observations of the party at a hearing to conclude he did not have the capacity to participate in the 

litigation in any meaningful fashion).

Additionally, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide:

(a) Appointment of Representative or Guardian. Upon commencement of an action or 

upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or 

incompetent person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person 

shall present (1) appropriate evidence of the appointment of a representative for the 

minor or incompetent person under state law or (2) a motion for the appointment 

of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or (3) a showing satisfactory to the Court that 

no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 

incompetent person. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c);

. . . .

(c) Disclosure of Attorney’s Interest. When the minor or incompetent is represented by 

an attorney, it shall be disclosed to the Court by whom and the terms under which 

the attorney was employed; whether the attorney became involved in the 

application at the instance of the party against whom the causes of action are 

asserted, directly or indirectly; whether the attorney stands in any relationship to 

that party; and whether the attorney has received or expects to receive any 

compensation, from whom, and the amount. (E.D. Cal. Local Rule 202).

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 35 Filed 04/07/23 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

DISCUSSION

The petition states that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with early Alzheimer’s dementia. (Doc. 

31-1, p. 2). The petition also states that a conservatorship for Plaintiff’s estate has been established.

(Id.) A letter of conservatorship issued by the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, is 

attached to the petition. (Doc. 31-3). The letters of conservatorship set out court findings that 

Plaintiff is unable to properly provide for his personal needs. (Doc. 31-2). In addition, the 

California court reviewed a declaration provided by Plaintiff’s medical provider in determining 

Plaintiff’s conservatorship. (Id.) The set court recognizes Garcia as the conservator for Plaintiff’s 

person and estate. (Doc. 31-3).

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that the Court may consider declarations from the allegedly 

incompetent litigant, sworn declarations or letters from treating medical providers, and medical 

records when making an incompetency determination. Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 

(9th Cir. 2005). “Under California law, evidence of incompetence may be drawn from various 

sources, but the evidence relied upon must ‘speak . . . to the court’s concern . . . whether the person 

in question is able to meaningfully take part in the proceedings.’” AT&T Mobility, 143 F. Supp. 3d 

at 1050. (quoting In re Christina B., 19 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1450 (1993)).

Here, having considered the unopposed petition for appointment of Garcia as Plaintiff’s 

guardian ad litem, the supplemental briefing, supporting declarations, and Plaintiff’s letter of 

conservatorship — the Court finds that the petition should be granted. The Court further finds that 

no conflict would preclude Garcia from serving as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff. The Court finds 

that the appointment is both necessary and appropriate.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff Manual Palomares’s unopposed motion to appoint Violeta Negrete Garcia 

as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff (Docs. 31, 34) is GRANTED; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 35 Filed 04/07/23 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

2. Violeta Negrete Garcia is appointed to act as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff 

and is authorized to prosecute the claims on his behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 35 Filed 04/07/23 Page 4 of 4