Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01684-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

GLEN BEATY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER,

individually and in his official capacity,

JEFFREY GROSS, individually and in his

official capacity, and SCOTT PAYN,

individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-1684 LJO GSA 

ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF DAVID M. HADDEN.

M.D. AS PUBLIC GUARDIAN FOR

PLAINTIFF GLEN BEATY

(Documents 18 through 20)

Plaintiff Glen Beaty filed this civil rights action on September 23, 2009. (Doc. 1.) 

Defendants were served on September 25, 2009, and by subsequent stipulation, Defendants were

granted an additional sixty (60) days from the October 19, 2009, order, within which to file their

pleadings. (Docs. 9-12, 14.) On December 7, 2009, a second stipulation permitted Defendants

an additional sixty (60) days, through and until March 5, 2010, within which to file answers to

the complaint. (Doc. 22.)

//

1

Case 1:09-cv-01684-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 5
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

On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second Petition for Appointment of David M.

Hadden, M.D., Fresno County Public Guardian, as Guardian ad Litem on Behalf of Plaintiff Glen

Beaty. (Doc. 18.) Defendants have not filed any opposition. 

The Petition

Counsel for Plaintiff Russell D. Cook petitions this Court, pursuant to California Probate

Code section 1003 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 372, to appoint Fresno County

Public Guardian David M. Hadden. M.D., as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff. Mr. Cook declares

that Plaintiff is currently receiving psychiatric care at Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk,

California, following a commitment order issued by Fresno County Superior Court Judge H.

Sanderson on July 2, 2009. (Doc. 20, ¶ 6.) The Fresno County Superior Court ruled Plaintiff

incompetent in its criminal proceeding, People v. Glen Theodore Beaty, case number

CF04906297; the proceedings were suspended and Beaty was committed to Atascadero State

Hospital pursuant to California Penal Code section 1370, for a period not to exceed three years. 

(Doc. 20, ¶ 6 & Ex. B.) Mr. Cook declares that the commitment resulted from a psychiatric

evaluation of Beaty, and asks this Court take judicial notice of the Fresno County Superior

Court’s minute order reflecting same.

With particular regard to the appointment of Fresno County Public Guardian David M.

Hadden, M.D., Cook declares he has approached no less than five individuals, including

members of Plaintiff’s family, to act as Beaty’s guardian ad litem, yet none would consent to act

in that capacity. Cook declares he would be willing to provide the Court with those individuals

identities in an in camera hearing if necessary, to protect their privacy. (Doc. 20, ¶ 7.) Cook

further declares that he spoke with Michelle Sloan, Division Manager for the Fresno County

Public Guardian, and Dr. Hadden himself, about the matter. While Dr. Hadden would not

voluntarily agree to act in the capacity of guardian, Cook declares that Dr. Hadden advised him

that he would abide by any order of this Court appointing the public guardian to act as guardian

ad litem of Plaintiff. (Doc. 20, ¶ 13.)

2

Case 1:09-cv-01684-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 5
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 plaintiff must have capacity to sue. “Capacity” refers to a party’s personal right to

litigate in federal court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 17(b). “[A]n incompetent person 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 . . . the

incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 17(c)(2). Counsel for

Beaty relies upon California Probate Code section 1003 and California Code of Civil Procedure 1

section 372 in support of his position that Plaintiff Glen Beaty be appointed a guardian ad litem 2

California Probate Code section 1003 provides in pertinent part: 1

(a) The court may, on its own motion or on request of a personal

representative, guardian, conservator, trustee, or other interested person, appoint a

guardian ad litem at any stage of a proceeding under this code to represent the

interest of any of the following persons, if the court determines that representation

of the interest otherwise would be inadequate: 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) An incapacitated person.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(c) The reasonable expenses of the guardian ad litem, including

compensation and attorney’s fees, shall be determined by the court and paid as the

court orders, either out of the property of the estate involved or by the petitioner or

from such other source as the court orders. 

Subdivision (a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 372 reads: 2

When a minor, an incompetent person, or a person for whom a conservator

has been appointed is a party, that person shall appear either by a guardian or

conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which

the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case. A

guardian ad litem may be appointed in any case when it is deemed by the court in

which the action or proceeding is prosecuted, or by a judge thereof, expedient to

appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the minor, incompetent person, or person

for whom a conservator has been appointed, notwithstanding that the person may

have a guardian or conservator of the estate and may have appeared by the

guardian or conservator of the estate. The guardian or conservator of the estate or

guardian ad litem so appearing for any minor, incompetent person, or person for

whom a conservator has been appointed shall have power, with the approval of

the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, to compromise the same,

to agree to the order or judgment to be entered therein for or against the ward or

3

Case 1:09-cv-01684-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 5
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

in the form of the Fresno County Public Guardian David M. Hadden, M.D. As counsel’s petition

explains, Plaintiff is currently being treated at Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk,

California, after the Honorable Houry Sanderson declared him to be incompetent in the related

criminal proceedings in Fresno County Superior Court, case number CF04906297. Notably too,

Defendants have not objected to appointment of a guardian ad litem. 

Thus, in order to litigate the instant matter, a guardian must be appointed to represent

Plaintiff’s interests. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); U.S.

v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat County, State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796,

805 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting, in part, that absence of guardian ad litem effectively precludes the

possibility of a binding contract of settlement because of the incompetency of one of the parties). 

Representation by an attorney is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 17(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in

Klickitat County, State of Wash., 795 F.2d at 806. 

California Probate Code section 1003.5 provides that “[t]he public guardian shall not be

appointed as a guardian ad litem . . . unless the court, after reasonable notice and inquiry, finds

that no other qualified person is willing to act as a guardian ad litem.” Here, counsel has

declared that he has approached “no less than five (5) individuals, three of which either knew Mr.

Beaty or were family members, about their willingness to act as a guardian ad litem,” yet none

would agree to so act. (Doc. 20, ¶ 7.) Counsel further indicated that he has attempted to locate a

party willing to act as Plaintiff’s guardian since over the course of several months, but was

ultimately unsuccessful until the public guardian agreed to act in that capacity were it ordered by

conservatee, and to satisfy any judgment or order in favor of the ward or

conservatee or release or discharge any claim of the ward or conservatee pursuant

to that compromise. Any money or other property to be paid or delivered pursuant

to the order or judgment for the benefit of a minor, incompetent person, or person

for whom a conservator has been appointed shall be paid and delivered as

provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3600) of Part 8 of Division 4 of

the Probate Code.

4

Case 1:09-cv-01684-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 4 of 5
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

this Court to do so. (Doc. 20, ¶ 8.) Thus, the Court finds that because no other qualified person

is willing to act as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem in these proceedings, it is proper to appoint the

public guardian, subject to his acknowledgment and acceptance of the appointment.

Finally, this Court makes no orders regarding compensation of the public guardian as no

such request has been made in the instant motion. Moreover, such a request would appear

premature at this time. 

ORDER

In light of the foregoing, this Court 

1. GRANTS the motion or petition for appointment of guardian ad litem filed on

behalf of Plaintiff Glen Beaty; 

2. APPOINTS David M. Hadden, M.D., Public Guardian of Fresno County, as

guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Glen Beaty, subject to Dr. Hadden’s voluntary

acceptance and acknowledgment of the appointment in writing, including the fact

this Court has made no order concerning payment of any fees or costs incurred by

the Fresno County Public Guardian related to its appointment; and

3. DIRECTS Plaintiff’s counsel to file with the Court Dr. Hadden’s written

voluntary acceptance and acknowledgment of his appointment as guardian ad

litem of Plaintiff Glen Beaty within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-01684-LJO-JLT Document 28 Filed 01/21/10 Page 5 of 5