Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01193/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01193-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

DARYL DUNSMORE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13CV1193-GPC(PCL)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

AD LITEM

[Dkt. No. 103.]

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary of the

CDCR,

Respondent.

On June 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for counsel ad litem pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). When Petitioner initially filed his petition, he

filed two motions to appoint counsel which were denied by Magistrate Judge Lewis. 

(Dkt. Nos. 7, 11.) 

“The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to protect an incompetent person’s interests in 1

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

2014). “Once the court determines that a pro se litigant is incompetent, the court

Rule 17(c) provides: 1

(c) Minor or Incompetent Person. (1) With a Representative. The following

representatives may sue or defend on behalf of a minor or an incompetent person: 

(A) a general guardian;

(B) a committee;

(C) a conservator; or 

(D) a like fiduciary

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

- 1 - [11cv1193-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:13-cv-01193-GPC-PCL Document 105 Filed 06/26/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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

generally should appoint a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c). But the Rule does not

make such an appointment mandatory. If another order would sufficiently protect the

incompetent person’s interestsin the litigation in lieu of a guardian, the court may enter

such an order.” Id. 

The Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel ad

litem in prosecuting the case. The case is fully briefed and ready for ruling by this 2

Court. The report and recommendation was filed by the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No.

55.) Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 98.) 

Therefore, no other filings are required. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

motion for counsel ad litem. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Petitioner also improperly raises the issue that he may not have been competent 2

at his state court trial, and therefore the jury’s finding on intent may have been

different. First, Petitioner failed to raise this issue in his petition and he cannot raise

new issuesin a motion to appoint counsel ad litem after the case has been fully briefed. 

See e.g., Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 930 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover,

the claim that Petitioner was allegedly incompetent at trial is contradictory to his claim

in his habeas petition that he was improperly deemed incompetent, and in fact was

competent to stand trial at the time the trial judge ruled on his competency. 

- 2 - [11cv1193-GPC(PCL)]

Case 3:13-cv-01193-GPC-PCL Document 105 Filed 06/26/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2