Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02163/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02163-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AISHA JAMILAH TIGGS, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-02163-DC-SCR 

ORDER GRANTING SEQUOIA BROWN’S 

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFF 

N.C.

(Doc. No. 25)

This matter is before the court on the application of non-party Sequoia Brown for 

appointment as guardian ad litem of her son, Plaintiff N.C.1(Doc. No. 25.) No opposition to the 

pending application has been filed. For the reason explained below, the court will grant the

application and appoint Sequoia Brown as Plaintiff N.C.’s guardian ad litem.

Under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor or an 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 a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 17(c)(2). A representative of a minor or incompetent person may sue or defend on behalf of the 

1 The docket in this case erroneously lists Sequoia Brown as a named plaintiff in this action. 

However, the complaint’s caption and the complaint only refer to Sequoia Brown as a proposed 

guardian ad litem. (Doc. No. 1 at 1, 3.) Accordingly, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to 

correct the docket.

Case 2:22-cv-02163-DC-SCR Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 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

2

minor or incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

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 Cnty., 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. Id. The guardian need not possess special qualifications, 

but he 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)).

In this district, Local Rule 202(a) further provides, in pertinent part:

Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in 

defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor . . . the attorney 

representing the minor or incompetent person shall present . . . a 

motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the Court, or

. . . a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is 

necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or 

incompetent person.

L.R. 202(a) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). Local Rule 202 also requires disclosure of the 

attorney’s interest, specifically requiring the following:

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.

L.R. 202(c).

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-ADACDB, 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)). 

Case 2:22-cv-02163-DC-SCR Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 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

3

The proposed guardian ad litem, Sequoia Brown, is the mother of Plaintiff N.C. (Doc. 25 

at ¶ 3.) The application states Sequoia Brown has no interest potentially adverse to Plaintiff N.C. 

and she consents to the appointment. (Doc. Nos. 25 at ¶¶ 5, 7; 25-1.) Based on those 

representations, the court finds Sequoia Brown to be an appropriate guardian ad litem for Plaintiff 

N.C. and the requirements of Local Rule 202(a) have been satisfied.

The application also meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(c). In a declaration filed in 

support of the pending application, Plaintiffs’ counsel Sanjay S. Schmidt declares he was retained 

to represent Plaintiffs on a pro bono basis. (Doc. No. 26 at ¶ 5.) Counsel Schmidt states his office 

has also incurred substantial case costs, which he has decided also to provide to Plaintiffs on a pro 

bono basis. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Counsel Schmidt asserts he did not become involved in this case at the 

instance of Defendant County of San Joaquin or any other party against whom the causes of 

actions are asserted, and he does not stand in any relationship with any of the parties or attorneys 

in this lawsuit. (Id. at ¶ 7.) 

Accordingly:

1. The application for the appointment of Sequoia Brown as guardian ad litem for 

Plaintiff N.C. (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect that Sequoia 

Brown is not a named plaintiff in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:22-cv-02163-DC-SCR Document 27 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 3