Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02682/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02682-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

HOANG MINH TRAN 

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM D. GORE, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE

ADA, (2) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING,

AND (3) ALLAN TRACY GILMORE’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

NEXT FRIEND OR COUNSEL

[ECF Nos. 36, 38 & 51]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 8, 2012 “Motion For Entitlement of

Americans Disability Act (ADA) Reasonable Accommodation Under Rehabilitation Act Title II

Required Appointment Of Counsel” [ECF. No. 36], November 13, 2012 Motion For A Competency

Hearing [ECF. No. 38], Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Competency Hearing

[ECF No. 52], and Mr. Allan Tracy Gilmore’s January 14, 2013 “Ex Parte Motion and Request for

Court to Appoint Next Friend or Appoint Counsel to Litigate on Behalf of Hoang Minh Tran Due

to Incompetence” [ECF No. 51]. 

Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents presented, and for the

reasons set forth below, the motions [ECF Nos. 36, 38 & 51] are DENIED.

///

10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 12
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

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of his complaint on December 20, 2010. ECF No.

1. On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 7 (“FAC”). In his FAC,

Plaintiff alleges that his civil rights were violated and he was denied equal protection, freedom

of speech, due process, adequate medical care, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment

while he was detained in the George F. Bailey Detention Facility on August 1st, 6th, and 12th

2009. Id. at 1-4. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied a welfare package containing

various personal hygiene products and forced into solitary confinement without any type of

hearing. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff further contends that he was improperly denied medication for

hemorrhoids in retaliation for his alleged role in the high profile escape of another inmate from

the detention facility. Id. at 4-5. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendants illegally

confiscated his bible, violating his right to freedom of religion. Id. at 6.

Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel on December 20, 2010. ECF No. 3. 

That motion was denied on May 23, 2011 in an order finding that “neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances” warranted the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 4. 

On February 21, 2012, Defendant John Gill, M.D., filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.1 ECF No. 19. On May 31, 2012,

Defendants Sarandi Marina, Lizzie Womack, and Brandt O. Pile filed answers to the FAC. ECF

Nos. 21 and 22. 

On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed another motion for appointment of counsel after being

released from incarceration. ECF No. 25. That motion was denied on October 24, 2012 because

Plaintiff again failed to establish “the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify a pro bono

appointment.” ECF No. 30 at 3.

On October 11, 2012, Defendants Sarandi Marina, Lizzie Womack, and Brandt O. Pile filed

a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Discovery and the Court issued a briefing schedule

that same day. ECF Nos. 26 & 27. The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the

1

Defendant Gill’s motion to dismiss was granted on November 14, 2012 and Plaintiff was given thirty days

in which to file and serve a second amended complaint which he did not do. ECF No. 39.

2 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 12
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

Court on November 7, 2012. ECF No. 34. In the order, Plaintiff was not sanctioned, but was

ordered to respond to Defendants’ written discovery by November 30, 2012. Id. at 4. 

On October 19, 2012, the Court held a Mandatory Settlement Conference and Plaintiff

failed to appear. ECF No. 29. On that same day, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why

Sanctions Should not be Imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to appear and required Plaintiff to file a

declaration regarding his failure. Id. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief of Sanctions on November

2, 2012 that the Court interpreted as Plaintiff’s declaration. ECF No. 33. After reviewing

Plaintiff’s declaration and speaking with Plaintiff at the hearing, the Court declined to impose

sanctions. ECF No. 41.

On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Motion For Entitlement of Americans Disability Act

(ADA) Reasonable Accommodation Under Rehabilitation Act Title II Required Appointment Of

Counsel.” ECF No. 36. On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion For A Competency

Hearing, and on November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. ECF Nos. 38

& 43. All three documents were accepted on discrepancy by District Judge Barry T. Moskowitz

and the first two referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major. ECF. Nos. 35, 37 & 42. To aid

in evaluating Plaintiff’s motions, the Court issued an order on December 14, 2012 asking Plaintiff

to submit “all of his medical records from January 1, 2012 to the present, that support his

allegations that he is incompetent” and Defendants to respond. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff timely filed

his supporting documents on January 7, 2013 and Defendants filed an opposition to the motion

for a competency hearing on January 25, 2013. ECF Nos. 48, 49 & 52.

On January 14, 2013, Mr. Allan Tracy Gilmore filed an “Ex Parte Motion and Request for

Court to Appoint Next Friend or Appoint Counsel to Litigate on Behalf of Hoang Minh Tran Due

to Incompetence.” ECF No. 51.

The Court vacated all dates set forth in the Court’s June 1, 2012 Order Regulating

Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings [ECF No. 23] on February 6, 2012 in response to

Defendants’ February 1, 2013 motion to continue dates [ECF No. 53]. ECF No. 54.

///

///

3 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 12
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

DISCUSSION

A. Motion For Entitlement of Reasonable Accommodation

In his “Motion for Entitlement of Americans Disability Act (ADA) Reasonable Accommodation Under Rehabilitation Act Title II Required Appointment Of Counsel,” Plaintiff argues that he

is a person with a disability under the ADA due to his numerous physical and mental conditions

and, therefore, is entitled to the “appropriate and reasonable accommodation [of] attorney

representation.” ECF No. 36 at 1-4. In support, Plaintiff states that the medication that he takes

has “adversary [sic] side effect[s] such as: drowsiness, dizziness, light headache, and lack of

concentration to focus while [sic] prevented him to learn how to or become an [sic] competent

pro se litigant or attorney” and that “[d]enying appointed counsel for certain disabled civil

litigants violated Title II . . . of the ADA.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff further states that the Court’s failure

to appoint counsel would be tantamount to preventing Plaintiff from bringing his case and a

denial of “equal justice and fair treatment.” Id. at 4. Finally, Plaintiff argues that appointing

counsel should be considered along the same lines as providing an interpreter or closed caption

decoders because counsel would interpret the law and allow Plaintiff to participate in litigating

his case. Id. at 5-6. The Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as his third request for counsel. 

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” 

Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional

circumstances demands at least “an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

1986)). 

Since the outset of this case more than a year-and-a-half ago, Plaintiff has drafted and

submitted numerous pleadings and motions without the assistance of counsel. For example,

Plaintiff has submitted a complaint and an amended complaint [ECF Nos. 1 & 7], two previous

4 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 4 of 12
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

motions to appoint counsel [ECF Nos. 3 & 25], a motion for relief from sanctions [ECF No. 33],

the instant ADA motion [ECF No. 36], a motion for a competency hearing [ECF No. 38], and a

notice of voluntary dismissal [ECF No. 43]. From the Court’s review of these documents, it is

apparent that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of his case and the issues involved, and he is able

to adequately articulate the factual and legal basis of his claims.2 Although Plaintiff’s allegations

are sufficient to state a claim for relief, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the

merits is low. However, even if the Court determined that it is likely that Plaintiff will succeed

on the merits, Plaintiff fails to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances” warranting the

appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff’s instant motion to appoint counsel makes essentially the same arguments: he is

physically disabled, he is mentally disabled3

, and he is relying upon another layman for legal

assistance. ECF Nos. 3, 25, & 36. Plaintiff essentially makes the same argument that every pro

se inmate could make—namely, that an attorney could or would handle this case better than he

can. ECF No. 36 at 5-6. This argument does not warrant the appointment of counsel. Thus,

in his instant motion, Plaintiff does not allege any different facts or circumstances to change the

Court’s prior decision that there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant appointing an

attorney to represent him. In addition, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to

counsel under the ADA or that his medical conditions prevent him from litigating this case. 

Plaintiff contends that appointed counsel would assist him in interpreting communications

from the Court and participating in “pretrial proceedings such as deposition, discovery, and

interrogatory, and gather fact finding or when it comes to trial.” ECF No. 36 at 5-6. However,

factual disputes and anticipated examinations of witnesses at trial do not warrant the finding of

exceptional circumstances supporting an appointment of counsel. See Rand v. Rowland, 113

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)

2

Plaintiff’s reliance on prisoners for assistance in drafting his pleadings [see ECF No. 3 at 10 & 25 at 7] does

not alter this analysis. See, e.g., Montano v. Solomon, 2010 WL 4137476, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (denying

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel where “plaintiff has adequately presented, albeit through another inmate,

the salient factual allegations of this case . . . .”).

3

The Court addresses this allegation in more detail in Section B.

5 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 5 of 12
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

(en banc) (holding that the appellant “may well have fared better [with appointed counsel]–

particularly in the realms of discovery and the securing of expert testimony–but this is not the

test”); see also Peterson v. Anderson, 2009 WL 4506542, at *3 (D. Mont. Dec. 2, 2009) (citing

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331) (“Although Plaintiff contends he is not in a position to litigate this

matter, pro se litigants are rarely in a position to research and investigate facts easily. This alone

does not deem a case complex.”). “[A]ny pro se litigant certainly would be better served with

the assistance of counsel.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“[A]

pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the

case.”). But a plaintiff is only entitled to appointed counsel if he can show “that because of the

complexity of the claims he [is] unable to articulate his positions.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; see

also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that was required to establish successfully the complexity

of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts,

practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). Despite his assertions to the contrary,

Plaintiff has not shown anything in the record that makes this case “exceptional” or the issues

in it particularly complex. 

The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous requests for counsel [ECF Nos. 4 & 30], and Plaintiff’s

current request does not provide any new facts justifying such an extraordinary remedy. Plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate an inability to represent himself beyond the ordinary burdens

encountered by pro se parties, and the Court finds that the “exceptional circumstances” required

for court-appointed counsel are absent. See, e.g., Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; Wilborn, 789

F.2d at 1331. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

B. Motion For A Competency Hearing

In his Motion For A Competency Hearing, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court hold a

competency hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 17(c). ECF No. 38. 

In support, Plaintiff states that he suffers from “[s]chizophrenia; PTSD; severe depression; and

chronic anxiety which making [sic] it very very difficulty [sic] for him to comprehend and comply

with the pretrial proceedings Court’s ordered” and that his “psychotropic and painkiller

medications” are causing him to feel drowsy, dizzy, and have headaches and are leaving him

6 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 6 of 12
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

unable to concentrate. Id. at 1-2. Additionally, Plaintiff submitted copies of his recent medical

records which he believes supports his claim of incompetency. ECF Nos. 48 & 49. 

In their opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied “because

he understands the nature and consequences of his lawsuits against Defendants and is

repeatedly demonstrating his ability to represent himself.” ECF No. 52 at 3. In support,

Defendants state that Plaintiff “has been selective about how to advance his litigation posture”

and that his behavior has shown that “he understands the nature and extent of the proceedings,

and when convenient he can represent himself.” Id. For example, when faced with the threat

of sanctions from the Court, Plaintiff attended and participated in an Order to Show Cause

hearing. Id. Defendants further state that the mental health records submitted by Plaintiff in

support of his claim do not provide reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff is incompetent. Id.

at 7. Specifically, Defendants note that the records show that Plaintiff is stable on his current

medications and that despite speaking broken English, Plaintiff is able to “advocate for himself

very well.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a district court must hold a competency

hearing “when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153

(9th Cir. 2005). If a competency hearing is warranted, the Court must appoint counsel for the

limited purpose of representing the petitioner at the competency hearing. See Rule 8(c) of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“[i]f an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must

appoint an attorney to represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18

U.S.C. § 3006A(g)”). Although the Allen court did not specify what constitutes “substantial

evidence” of incompetence or what is the “appropriate standard,” it gave some guidance. In

determining whether Petitioner has presented “substantial evidence of incompetence,” the Court

may consider any appropriate evidence including sworn declarations by Petitioner or other

inmates, sworn declarations or letters from treating or prison psychiatrists or psychologists, and

relevant medical records. Id. at 1151-53. 

In Allen, the petitioner submitted his own sworn declaration and a declaration from a

fellow inmate which stated that Allen was mentally impaired and did not understand the court’s

7 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 7 of 12
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

orders. Id. at 1151. He also submitted a letter from a prison psychiatrist which stated that Allen

was in the Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) at the prison, had been “diagnosed with

Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia and [was] taking two psychotropic medications.” Id. at

1151-52. Allen filed a second declaration in support of his motion for appointment of counsel

in which he stated that he suffered from a “‘debilitating mental illness that requires a course of

treatment that includes the use of various psychotropic medications’” and that the mental illness

combined with the medications “‘severely [hinder] his ability to comprehend or correctly respond

to the determinations and Orders made by the Court.’” Id. at 1152. The Ninth Circuit concluded

that this was sufficient to require the district court to make a determination as to Allen’s

competency by appointing counsel and conducting a competency hearing. Id. at 1153-54.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to submit substantial evidence of incompetence to justify a

competency hearing. Like the prisoner in Allen, Plaintiff has submitted a declaration from a

former fellow inmate, Mr. Gilmore, who states that he is "a witness to in affirmation Plaintiff

Hoang Ming Tran's mental incompetence, and physical disability and further Plaintiff's severe lack

of ability to prosecute his case in a court of law."4

 ECF No. 51 at 9. However, unlike the plaintiff

in Allen, Plaintiff does not have medical records to support his claim of incompetency. ECF No.

49. Specifically, Plaintiff has submitted numerous documents which show that he has a history

of mental illness including depression, schizophrenia, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and

a suicide attempt5

, and that he has been treated with various medications and therapy for those

illnesses6

; however, none of those documents show that Plaintiff, in his current state and with

his current medications, is incompetent. ECF No. 49 at 8, 36, 51, & 73. In fact, the documentation shows that with his current medication, Plaintiff "feels relatively stable" and that Plaintiff's

doctors found him to be of average intellect and have age appropriate and normal memory,

4

While the Court accepts Mr. Gilmore’s opinion that Plaintiff is mentally incompetent and lacks the ability to

prosecute his claims, the Court finds it difficult to evaluate these opinions since Mr. Gilmore provides no facts or

observations to support his conclusions. 

5

Plaintiff attempted to cut his left wrist on March 2010 in response to a command from an auditory

hallucination to end his life. No stitches were required. Id. at 47.

6

Plaintiff received counseling while incarcerated that was helpful. Id. at 8.

8 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 8 of 12
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

insight, and judgment Id. at 8, 12, & 36. On February 6, 2012 that doctor noted that Plaintiff's

"English is a little broken but can advocate for self very well." Id. at 32. In March 2012,

Plaintiff's doctors considered him to be anxious, but alert and oriented. Id. at 25. 

In addition to his mental difficulties, Plaintiff’s records demonstrate that he has a variety

of physical health problems. The medical records show that Plaintiff has a history of hernias,

epileptic seizures, joint pain, hearing loss, insomnia, and hemorrhoids. Id. at 57-58, 60-61 & 71. 

The records do not, however, state or imply that any of these physical conditions have left

Plaintiff incompetent and unable to care for himself or proceed with this litigation. Id. While

Plaintiff’s records show that Plaintiff’s does have some difficulties,7 for the reasons described

above, Plaintiff has not shown substantial evidence of incompetence.

In addition to their content, the medical records also show that Plaintiff has diligently

followed up with his medical care, attended his appointments, taken his medications as

prescribed, and advocated for himself when he felt that a medication was not working or there

was some other problem with his treatment, which supports the finding that Plaintiff has not

demonstrated incompetency.8

 

Finally, this Court had the opportunity to personally observe Plaintiff during the Order to

Show Cause hearing and did not observe any behavior or statements indicating mental

incompetence. ECF No. 52, Exhibit 1. While Mr. Tran repeatedly asked for a lawyer to be

appointed to represent him, his responses were appropriate to the Court’s questions and

indicated that he clearly understood the proceedings. Id. Plaintiff explained to the Court that

he could not comply with the written discovery requests now that he was out of custody because

he does not have access to his “prisoner assistant” and he experienced “emotional anxieties” or

7

See Id. at 8 (“he hears some voices (non command) when he is alone”), 33 (“poorly coping/engages was

selected due to clt reporting increase in Sx distress which is negatively affecting his daily functioning”), 34 (Plaintiff

has "difficulty with organizing his appts and information"), 40 (“he has some flashbacks from time to time . . . [from]

his family[’s] escape from Vietcong”), and 76 (“appears older than stated age”). 

8

See Id. at 29 ("client verbalized complaint about Abilify keeping him awake at night and he is requesting

Wellbutrin instead"), 30 ("Client presented to clinic as a stand by patient to see provider for a record review and

possible copying of requested records. Client also wanted to discuss medication changes"), 57 (Plaintiff "wants to

change to Percocet from Tylenol #3 or something different and better"), and 63 (Plaintiff "[w]ould also like a 'grip'

for his cane. Cane is hurting his hand").

9 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 9 of 12
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

“panic attack[s]” when he tried to answer the discovery requests. Id. at 7. These symptoms do

not indicate incompetence and Plaintiff’s oral advocacy supports competence. The Court’s

observations are buttressed by the number of and quality of Plaintiff’s pleadings.9

 

Because Plaintiff has not presented substantial evidence of current incompetence, other

than his own motion stating that he suffers “drowsiness, dizziness, light headache and lack of

concentration”10, and Mr. Gilmore’s conclusory declaration, which is refuted by legitimate medical

records, Petitioner’s request for a competency hearing is DENIED. 

C. Ex Parte Motion for Court to Appoint Next Friend or Appoint Counsel

In his “Ex Parte Motion and Request for Court to Appoint Next Friend or Appoint Counsel

to Litigate on Behalf of Hoang Minh Tran Due to Incompetence,” Mr. Allan Tracy Gilmore seeks

to have the Court appoint a next friend to Plaintiff or, in the alternative, appoint counsel to

litigate on behalf of Plaintiff. ECF No. 51. In support, Mr. Gilmore states that under FRCP 17(c)

Plaintiff may “sue by a next friend or by guardian ad litem” since he does not have a duly

appointed representative. Id. at 4. Mr. Gilmore also states that Plaintiff qualifies for counsel

under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A. Id. Finally, Mr. Gilmore notes that while he has been assisting

Plaintiff up to this point, he “has done all that he is able to do” and “is an incarcerated individual

and surely cannot appear in court on behalf of Plaintiff . . . acting in the capacity as counsel.” 

Id. at 2. 

In their opposition to Plaintiff’s request for a competency hearing, Defendants also oppose

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of a next friend. ECF No. 52 at 5. In support, Defendants

note that “Mr. Gilmore would be ill suited to be appointed as an officer of the court. And as Mr.

Gilmore himself acknowledges, as an incarcerated person he cannot make appearances for

plaintiff.” Id.

If Mr. Gilmore is motioning for the Court to appoint a next friend in support of Plaintiff’s

motion for a competency hearing, the request is DENIED. As discussed above, the Court does

9

In addition, to this case, Plaintiff has filed nine other lawsuits in this district and has been actively litigating

three of them. The other seven cases are closed.

10While potentially uncomfortable and frustrating, Plaintiff does not present any medical evidence that these

symptoms leave him incompetent. 

10 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 10 of 12
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

not find that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to support his claim of incompetence and

Mr. Gilmore’s motion does nothing to alter that finding. If Mr. Gilmore is requesting that the

Court appoint him as Plaintiff’s next friend, the request is DENIED for the reasons discussed

below. 

“'[N]ext friend' standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to

pursue an action on behalf of another." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). "In

order to establish next-friend standing, the putative next friend must show: (1) that the

petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court,

or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, and is

truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner." Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and

Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Massie ex rel. Kroll v.

Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Mr. Gilmore fails to satisfy the first prong of the next friend test as he has not

demonstrated that Plaintiff is unable to litigate his own case. While Mr. Gilmore states that

Plaintiff’s mental incompetence and physical disability render him unable to litigate ths action,

Mr. Gilmore fails to provide any support for his conclusion or evidence that he is qualified to

make a determination as to Plaintiff’s competency. 

With respect to the second prong, Mr. Gilmore has not demonstrated that he is dedicated

to the best interest of Plaintiff. As quoted above, Mr. Gilmore believes that he has done all that

he is able to do and cannot make appearances for Plaintiff or perform other duties because he

is currently incarcerated. ECF No. 51 at 2. Also, in Whitmore, the Supreme Court explained that

“'[h]owever friendly'” and “'sympathetic'” a petition may be, and however concerned the

petitioner is that “'unconstitutional laws [are being] enforced,'” a petitioner without a significant

relationship does not suffer a sufficient grievance for standing purposes." Whitmore, 495 U.S.

at 166. Here, Mr. Gilmore has not indicated that he has any relationship with Plaintiff apart from

assisting him with his legal affairs. ECF No. 52. Having demonstrated no significant relationship

with Plaintiff, Mr. Gilmore has failed to satisfy the second prong of the test for "next friend"

11 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 11 of 12
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

 status.11 Mr. Gilmore merely states that he is "a witness . . . to Plaintiff Hoang Minh Tran's

mental incompetence, and physical disability." Id. at 9. This relationship is insufficient to

support “next friend” standing. As such, Mr. Gilmore’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 8, 2013

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

11Mr. Gilmore cites to a Bowen v, Rubin, 213 F. Supp. 2d 220, 226 (E.D. N.Y. Aug. 24, 2001) for the

proposition that "a close relationship or blood tie need not exist between a proposed next friend and an individual

in need of representation." ECF No. 51 at 2. While Mr. Gilmore's citation is correct, the Court notes that the next

line of the case makes it clear that this is the position of the Second Circuit (stating "[t]he Second Circuit has

construed Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c) broadly, stating that a next friend include[s] any one who has an interest in the welfare

of an infant [or incompetent] who may have a grievance or a cause of action” (internal quotations omitted)) which

is not binding on our Court which is located in the Ninth Circuit.

12 10cv2682-BTM (BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-02682-BTM-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/08/13 Page 12 of 12