Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122-15/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- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

WILLIAM DAWES,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

HOWARD AUSBURY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET)

ORDER: 

LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. No. 46] 

GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

JUDICIAL NOTICE and DENYING 

REQUEST FOR HEARING TO 

APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

[Doc. No. 100]

RECONSIDERING MOTION TO 

APPOINT COUNSEL AND 

REFERRING CASE TO PRO BONO 

PANEL PURSUANT TO GO 596

[Doc. No. 89]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has brought this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ausbury, Bravo, 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 101 Filed 08/14/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 6
-2- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

Gene, Ugalde, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 1. After the 

Court granted Plaintiff in forma paupers status and screened his Complaint, Doc. No. 9, 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 13. The Court screened the Amended 

Complaint and dismissed all claims against all Defendants except for Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claims against Defendants Bravo, Gene, Ugalde, Ausbury, Silva, Shellano, 

Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. Doc. No. 15. Plaintiff served the Amended Complaint on 

Defendants and Defendants answered. Doc. Nos. 24–34. 

On April 15, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to stay these proceedings 

pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court, which the Court 

granted. See Doc. Nos. 44, 46; see also S.D. Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. Defendants were 

directed to file status reports advising the Court as to the continuing justification for the 

stay. Doc. No. 46. On June 29, 2021, Defendants filed a status report informing the 

Court that Plaintiff had been found incompetent to stand trial; the Court extended the stay 

through February 18, 2022. See Doc. Nos. 49–50. Plaintiff continued to litigate his 

competency in state court and Defendants filed five more status reports regarding those 

proceedings asking to extend the stay, which the Court granted. See Doc. Nos. 58–61, 

63–64, 68–69, 82–83. 

On August 9, 2024, Defendants filed a status report asking the Court to lift the stay 

because the state intended to dismiss the criminal charges against Dawes due to his 

continued incompetency. Doc. No. 100. Defendants also asked the Court to hold a 

hearing to determine whether to appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 17(c)(2). Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Lift Stay 

This case was stayed by the Court because Plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal 

proceedings could have mooted or narrowed his claims in this case and because Plaintiff 

could not be deposed or have proper access to legal materials while he was being held in 

the San Diego County Jail pending trial. See Doc. Nos. 44, 46. According to counsel for 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 101 Filed 08/14/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 6
-3- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

Defendants, Plaintiff’s criminal case has now been dismissed, and therefore the reasons 

for staying these proceedings no longer exist. See Doc. No. 100-2. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to lift the stay in this case.

B. Request for Judicial Notice and To Set a Guardian Ad Litem Hearing [Doc. No. 

100]

Defendants ask this Court to take judicial notice of court minutes and orders from 

Plaintiff’s state court criminal case and the California Court of Appeal’s order in 

Plaintiff’s appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Doc. No. 100-1. A court 

“‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal 

judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v. 

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 

F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the request for 

judicial notice.

The documents from Plaintiff’s state court criminal case show that because his 

incompetency has lasted more than two years, criminal proceedings were indefinitely 

suspended on May 3, 2024. According to a declaration by Deputy Attorney General 

Chris Findley, Plaintiff’s San Diego Superior Court case no. SCS287189 was dismissed 

on August 10, 2024. Doc. No. 100-2. The state court documents also show Plaintiff was 

most recently found to be incompetent on January 16, 2024. Doc. No. 100-1 at 4. Thus, 

because there is a substantial question regarding Plaintiff’s mental competence, in order 

for this case to proceed the Court must address its obligations under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 17(c)(2).

1

 See Harris v. Magnum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2017); Allen 

v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005).

1 Unless otherwise noted, all “Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 101 Filed 08/14/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 6
-4- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

Rule 17(c)(2) states that “[t]he 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). However, the Ninth Circuit has 

noted that “a non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than 

himself.’” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 867, 876-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing 

Osei–Afriyie v. Medical College, 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991)). Courts in the 

Ninth Circuit have interpreted this to mean a guardian ad litem must be represented by 

counsel in order to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent individual. See

Bradford v. Safy, No. 21-cv-0637-TLN (EFB P), 2022 WL 605667, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

1, 2022) (stating that “[w]ithout counsel . . . a plaintiff may not proceed through a 

guardian ad litem”) (citing Johns, 114 F.3d at 877)); Calabrese v. California, No. 19-cv2492-CBM (SPx), 2022 WL 2114569, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2022) (stating that under 

Johns, a guardian ad litem cannot proceed pro se on behalf of a Plaintiff); Reliastar Life 

Insurance Co. v. M.S., No. 19-cv-9628-MCS (AGR), 2020 WL 13866581, at *2 (stating 

that “[a] guardian ad litem must be represented by counsel”) (citing Johns, 114 F.3d at 

877)); Gonzalez v. Arizona Dept. of Health Services, No. 08-cv-2391-PHX (DGC), 2009 

WL 383535, at *1 (D. Ariz Feb. 13, 2009) (“‘An incompetent person who does not have 

a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem,’ so 

long as that representative is assisted by counsel.”) (quoting Johns, 114 F.3d at 877)).

“The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to protect an incompetent person’s interest in 

prosecuting or defending a lawsuit.” Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 (9th Cir. 

2014). Thus, while a court may appoint a guardian ad litem, it is not required to do so. 

“If another order would sufficiently protect the incompetent person’s interests in the 

litigation in lieu of a guardian, the court may enter such an order.” Id. “The appointment 

of counsel may serve as [an] alternative to the appointment of a guardian ad litem.” 

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1053 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) 

(citing Davis, 745 F.3d at 1311); see also Reliastar Life Insurance Co., 2020 WL 

13866581, at *2; Armstrong v. Brotherton, No. 13-cv-1264-PHX-DCG (BSB), 2014 WL 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 101 Filed 08/14/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 6
-5- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

46096, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2014) (appointing counsel for an incompetent plaintiff in 

lieu of a guardian ad litem). 

Plaintiff has expressed a desire to be represented by counsel in this case on two 

occasions, which the Court denied. See Doc. Nos. 65–66, 89, 94. The circumstances of 

this case, however, have changed because the case will no longer be stayed, Plaintiff has 

been found to be incompetent to stand trial for two years, and his state court criminal case 

has been dismissed. See Doc. No. 100-1 at 4–7, 13, 100-2. Further, even if the Court 

were to hold a hearing and determine that a guardian ad litem should be appointed, there 

is no obvious individual who could fulfill that role and any such person would have to 

secure counsel of their own. Johns, 114 F.3d at 876–77. Given these facts, the Court 

RECONSIDERS Plaintiff’s March 4, 2024 motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 89]. 

This Court’s General Order 596, which established the district’s Pro Bono Panel, states 

that the Court may appoint 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.” United States 

District Court, Southern District of California GO 596, adopted Aug. 3, 2011. The Court 

concludes that referring this case to the Pro Bono Panel to locate volunteer counsel is 

therefore appropriate, would adequately protect Plaintiff’s interests, and would discharge 

the Court’s duty under Rule 17(c)(2). Plaintiff is advised, however, that while the Court 

has elected to exercise its discretion to refer the case to the Pro Bono Panel, and will do 

its best to locate a volunteer willing to serve, it cannot make a coercive appointment 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and therefore Plaintiff is cautioned pro bono counsel is not 

guaranteed.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the request for a hearing to appoint a 

guardian ad litem. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to lift the stay and GRANTS

Defendants’ request for judicial notice [Doc. No. 100]. 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 101 Filed 08/14/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 5 of 6
-6- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

Further, in light of the Court’s obligations under Rule 17(c)(2), the changed 

circumstances of this case, the recent finding by the state court that Plaintiff remains 

incompetent, and Plaintiff’s previous requests for counsel, the Court RECONSIDERS its 

most recent denial of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. Nos. 89, 94] , 

and REFERS this case to the Pro Bono Panel for the United States District Court, 

Southern District of California. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for a 

hearing to appoint a guardian ad litem. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 14, 2024

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 101 Filed 08/14/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 6 of 6