Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01524/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01524-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

Background

Plaintiffs Jennifer DeLuca and minors M.D. and G.D., by and through their proposed guardian 

ad litem Anthony DeLuca, the minors’ biological maternal grandfather (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 

commenced this civil rights action with the filing of a complaint against Defendants Kern County, 

Kern County Sheriff’s Office, Kern County Hospital Authority, and Sheriff Donny Youngblood 

(collectively, “Defendants”) on December 12, 2024. (Doc. 1).

Pending before the Court are the motions of minor Plaintiffs M.D. and G.D. to appoint their 

biological maternal grandfather, Anthony DeLuca, as guardian ad litem, filed December 12, 2024. 

(Docs. 3, 4).

Applicable Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a representative of a minor may 

sue or defend on the minor’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). A court “must appoint a guardian ad 

JENNIFER DELUCA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01524-JLT-CDB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTIONS TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(Docs. 3, 4)

14-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:24-cv-01524-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 4
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

litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 

unrepresented in an action.” Id. The capacity of an individual to sue is determined “by the law of the 

individual’s domicile.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). 

Under California law, an individual under the age of 18 is a minor, and a minor may bring suit 

if a guardian conducts the proceedings. Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. The Court may appoint a 

guardian ad litem to represent the minor’s interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(a). To evaluate whether 

to appoint a particular guardian ad litem, the Court must consider whether the minor and the guardian 

have divergent interests. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 372(b)(1); see id. § 372(d)(1)–(2) (“Before a court 

appoints a guardian ad litem pursuant to this chapter, a proposed guardian ad litem shall disclose both 

of the following to the court and all parties to the action or proceeding: (1) Any known actual or 

potential conflicts of interest that would or might arise from the appointment[; and] (2) [a]ny familial 

or affiliate relationship the proposed guardian ad litem as with any of the parties.”).

The appointment of the guardian ad litem is more than a mere formality. United States v. 

30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat Cty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th 

Cir. 1986). A Court shall take whatever measures it deems appropriate to protect the interests of the 

individual during the litigation. See id. (noting, “[a] guardian ad litem is authorized to act on behalf of 

his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of specific litigation.”). The guardian 

need not possess any special qualifications, but she must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the 

person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp.3d 1042, 

1054 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990)). This means that 

the guardian cannot face an impermissible conflict of interest with the ward, and courts consider the 

candidate’s “experience, objectivity and expertise” or previous relationship with the ward. Id. 

(citations omitted). 

Further, 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 

Case 1:24-cv-01524-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 4
3

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

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).

The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem “must normally be left to the sound discretion of 

the trial court.” 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 804. Fit parents are presumed to act in the best 

interests of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). However, “if the parent has an 

actual or potential conflict of interest with [their] child, the parent has no right to control or influence 

the child’s litigation.” Molesky for J.M. v. Carillo, No. 1:22-cv-1567-ADA-CDB, 2022 WL 

17584396, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (quoting Williams v. Super. Ct. of San Diego, 147 Cal. App. 

4th 36, 50 (2007)).

Discussion

The supporting declaration of Anthony DeLuca accompanying the motions sets forth that G.D. 

is 9 years old and M.D. is 14 years old, and that both minors reside with the proposed guardian ad 

litem, who is their biological grandfather. (Docs. 3, 4 at 3). The proposed guardian ad litem 

represents that on or about October 22, 2023, the minors’ mother, Plaintiff Jennifer DeLuca, was 

experiencing a mental health crisis which prompted her family to contact the Kern County Sheriff’s 

Office for assistance, and on or about October 27, 2023, Jennifer DeLuca attempted suicide by 

jumping off the second floor of the housing module to which she was booked, resulting in serious and 

permanent injuries to her person. (Id.). The proposed guardian ad litem further represents that as a 

result of those injuries, Jennifer DeLuca is now physically and mentally disabled such that she cannot 

maintain a meaningful or similar relationship that she once had with her children G.D. and M.D. (Id.). 

The proposed guardian ad litem represents that both G.D. and M.D. have no other appointed 

representative or guardian, and as minors, can only bring their claims by way of a guardian ad litem. 

Case 1:24-cv-01524-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/16/24 Page 3 of 4
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

(Id.). A review of the docket confirms that no other motion for appointment of guardian ad litem for 

either G.D. or M.D. has been filed. The proposed guardian ad litem declares that he has no known or 

foreseeable interests adverse to those of G.D. or M.D. (Id. at ¶ 6). The proposed guardian ad litem 

represent that he could competently testify to the matters concerned and he is qualified to understand 

and protect the rights of both G.D. and M.D. in this action. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 3). Plaintiffs are suing Kern 

County (Doc. 1) and there does not appear to be any conflict of interest among the claims and 

claimants.

Plaintiffs’ motions do not comply with Local Rule 202(c). Neither motion discloses the terms 

under which counsel for Plaintiffs was employed and whether counsel became involved in the 

application at the insistence of any Defendant. (Docs. 3, 4). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ motions do not 

demonstrate whether counsel for Plaintiffs stands in any relationship to Defendants or whether counsel 

has received or expects to receive any compensation, from whom, and the amount. See E.D. Cal. 

Local Rule 202(c).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions for the appointment of 

guardian ad litem (Docs. 3, 4) are DENIED without prejudice.

And it is FURTHER ORDERED that, within 14days of the date of entry of this order, 

Plaintiffs SHALL FILE renewed applications that remedy the aforementioned deficiencies consistent 

with Local Rule 202(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01524-JLT-CDB Document 7 Filed 12/16/24 Page 4 of 4