Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05938/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05938-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAOMI CASTILLO-RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, and DOES 1 to

100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-5938 EMC

ORDER DENYING RAMIREZ’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM NEXT

OF KIN

(Docket No. 46)

Maricela Ramirez has filed an application asking that she be appointed the guardian ad litem

or next friend of Plaintiff Naomi Castillo-Ramirez in order to prosecute a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

According to Ms. Ramirez, Plaintiff is a minor.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), “[a] minor . . . who does not have a duly

appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. The court must appoint

a guardian ad litem -- or issue another appropriate order -- to protect a minor . . . who is

unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). In determining “what factors or procedures to

use when appointing the guardian ad litem” or next friend, a court does not look to state law but

rather focuses on “the protection of the [minor’s] interests.” Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 314

F.3d 125, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Estate of Ricardo Escobedo v. City of Redwood City, No.

C03-03204 MJJ, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457, at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2006) (noting the

same); 4-17 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 17.21[3][a] (noting the same); cf. United States v. 30.64

Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 804 (1986) (stating that, “[a]lthough this circuit has not specifically

articulated its standard of review for appointment of a guardian ad litem, other circuits, older

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 52 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

precedent, and common sense suggest that such appointment must normally be left to the sound

discretion of the trial court and may be reviewed only for abuse of that discretion”). Factors that

have been considered by courts include whether the proposed guardian ad litem or next friend has a

significant relationship with the minor and whether the proposed guardian ad litem or next friend has

established that he or she is truly dedicated to the best interests of the minor. See 4-17 Moore’s Fed.

Prac. – Civ. § 17.25[2]; see also Safouane v. Fleck, 226 Fed. Appx. 753, 758 (9th Cir. 2007).

In the instant case, the Court concludes that Ms. Ramirez has failed to make an adequate

showing that she should be appointed Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem or next friend. For example, the

strength and closeness of the relationship between Ms. Ramirez and Plaintiff is not clear. Ms.

Ramirez is not a direct relative of the Plaintiff. Although Ms. Ramirez asserts she is the sister-inlaw of Plaintiff’s father, the decedent, she provides no other documentation or evidence of the

relationship. See App. at 2. See T.W. by & Through Enk v. Brophy, 954 F. Supp. 1306, 1310 (E.D.

Wis. 1996) (examining whether the proposed next friend was related to the minors or whether he

had served as their foster parent). Nor is it evident whether Ms. Ramirez has a close relationship

with Plaintiff given that Plaintiff allegedly resides in Mexico while Ms. Ramirez allegedly resides in

Oregon and/or California. See App. at 1-2. Cf. Safouane, 226 Fed. Appx. at 758 (examining

whether the proposed next friends had any contacts with the minors); T.W., 954 F. Supp. at 1310

(noting that the proposed next friend had met with the minors “no more than ten times”). Even if

Ms. Ramirez was given authority by the biological mother of Plaintiff’s father, the decedent, to

dispose of the decedent’s body (again there is no proof other than Ms. Ramirez’s statement not in

the form of a declaration given under oath), that does not establish in and of itself that she has a

significant relationship with Plaintiff. Cf. id. (noting that simply because the proposed next friend

was head of a children’s organization did not mean that he was acting in the interest of the two

minors at issue in particular). Finally, even assuming that Ms. Ramirez and Plaintiff have a

significant relationship, Ms. Ramirez has not shown that she is truly dedicated to the best interests of

Plaintiff. See, e.g., id. (examining whether the minors asked the proposed next friend to bring suit).

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 52 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, the Court denies Ms. Ramirez’s application for appointment as guardian ad

litem or next friend without prejudice. Ms. Ramirez shall be given thirty (30) days from the date of

this order to file a renewed motion for appointment as guardian ad litem or next friend. The motion

needs to be supported by evidence informing the factors discussed above. Ms. Ramirez is

forewarned that, if she fails to make the necessary showing in her renewed motion, then the case

may be dismissed with prejudice. 

Ms. Ramirez is further forewarned that, even if she is appointed guardian ad litem or next

friend, “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a

lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Ms. Ramirez is advised

again that information and advice may be obtained from the Legal Help Center, a flyer of which is

attached again.

This order disposes of Docket No. 46

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 52 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAOMI CASTILLO-RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, and DOES 1 to

100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-5938 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Naomi Castillo-Ramirez 

2113 W. Steele Lane 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

707-568-0348 

PRO SE

Maricela Ramirez 

2113 W. Steele Lane 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

PRO SE

Dated: June 10, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ Leni Doyle 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 52 Filed 06/10/10 Page 4 of 4