Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05938/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05938-0/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 GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 8)

Pro per plaintiff Naomi Castillo-Ramirez (“Castillo-Ramirez”), through her proposed

guardian ad litem Maricela Ramirez (“Ms. Ramirez”), brought this civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants County of Sonoma and Does 1 to 100, alleging that the defendants

violated her father’s civil rights during his incarceration at the county jail. Defendant County of

Sonoma has moved the Court to dismiss the claim, for, among other things, Castillo-Ramirez’s lack

of capacity to sue as an unrepresented minor. Having considered the parties’ briefs and

accompanying submissions, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant County of Sonoma’s motion to

dismiss.

I. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 sets forth the rules for determining a party’s capacity to

sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17. In determining whether an unrepresented minor may bring a civil

action, courts normally look to both Rule 17(b) and 17(c). See, e.g., Johns v. County of San Diego,

114 F.3d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir. 1997); Dean v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C-05-01876

EDL, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25217, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2006); Duarte v. Figueroa, No. C

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 26 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 3
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

05-1049 JF (PR), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15752, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006). In specific,

Rule 17(b)(1) provides that a plaintiff’s capacity to sue is determined by the law of the plaintiff’s

domicile. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17. When minors are involved, California Family Code §§ 6502 and

6601 provide that a minor, or an individual under the age of eighteen, may file a civil suit as long as

the action is conducted by a guardian. See Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6502, 6601. If a minor is

unrepresented, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) provides that a minor may sue by guardian

ad litem or by next friend, but a court must formally appoint the guardian ad litem to protect the

unrepresented minor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17; see also Watson v. County of Santa Clara, 468 F.

Supp. 2d 1150, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (dismissing without prejudice actions brought by plaintiff

minors because no guardian ad litem was formally appointed by the court). Moreover, it is wellestablished that even when a court formally appoints a guardian ad litem or next friend to represent a

minor, the guardian ad litem must retain a lawyer, because a non-lawyer may not appear as an

attorney for anyone other than himself. See Johns, 114 F.3d at 877. 

In the instant case, the Court agrees with Defendant County of Sonoma’s contention that

Castillo-Ramirez lacks capacity to sue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. First, neither

Castillo-Ramirez, a minor, nor Ms. Ramirez has put forth any record showing formal appointment of

a guardian ad litem or next friend by a court. In fact, Ms. Ramirez has admitted that she is presently

in the process of submitting her request to be formally appointed by the court as either guardian ad

litem or next friend of Castillo-Ramirez. See Pl.’s Opp. at 2. Without formal appointment of a

guardian by the court, Castillo-Ramirez does not have capacity to sue under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 17. 

Second, even assuming that a court were to formally appoint Ms. Ramirez as guardian ad

litem or next friend of Castillo-Ramirez, the action cannot proceed because Ms. Ramirez has not

retained a lawyer. See Johns, 114 F.3d at 877. In addition to seeking formal appointment as a

guardian ad litem, Ms. Ramirez has also indicated that she is currently in the process of submitting a

request for representation of counsel. See Pl.’s Opp. at 2. Accordingly, because Ms. Ramirez has

not been formally appointed as guardian ad litem by a court, nor has Ms. Ramirez retained counsel

for the present action, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice. 

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 26 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Until these deficiencies are properly addressed, the Court does not rule on the remaining

arguments raised by Defendant County of Sonoma concerning Castillo-Ramirez’s alleged failure to

state a claim for relief or the application of the Eleventh Amendment to the instant case. 

II. CONCLUSION

Because Castillo-Ramirez, as an unrepresented minor, cannot proceed with the present

action, Defendant County of Sonoma’s motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice. Ms. Ramirez

has until 60 days from date of filing of order to amend the complaint and to file a motion for

appointment of guardian ad litem or next friend. 

Ms. Castillo-Ramirez is advised that she may seek advice from the Legal Help Center in this

Courthouse, operated by the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the Bar Association of San

Francisco.

This order disposes of Docket No. 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05938-EMC Document 26 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 3