Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01553/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01553-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

CONCEPCION FLORES MOLINA,

Plaintiff/Cross 

Defendant,

v.

LUPE C. FLORES,

Defendant/Cross 

Plaintiff.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-CDB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

RENEWED PETITIONS TO APPOINT 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(Docs. 39, 45)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 40)

Clerk of the Court to Effect Service on Non-Party

21-Day Deadline

Pending before the Court is Defendant/Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores’ (“Flores”) renewed

petitions for appointment of guardian ad litem (Docs. 39, 45), motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 40), and other requests. Because the petitions fail to remedy deficiencies noted in the Court’s 

order denying Flores’ earlier petition for appointment of guardian ad litem (Doc. 33), and because 

Flores is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis, the petitions and motion will be denied without 

prejudice.

Petition for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem

In its earlier order denying Flores’ original petition for the appointment of guardian ad 

litem, the Court explained:

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 46 Filed 08/01/24 Page 1 of 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

2

This Order does not bar Ms. Flores from refiling a petition seeking appointment of 

guardian ad litem that complies with Local Rule 202 and the legal standards summarized 

above. Any such application must identify potential candidate(s) who are willing and able 

to be appointed as Ms. Flores’ guardian ad litem and include sworn attestations by those 

candidate(s) that they have no conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the application must be 

supported with relevant documents, such as proof of a conservatorship, and sworn 

declarations by, for instance, a medical provider or legal counsel attesting that Ms. Flores 

is unable to participate in the litigation in any meaningful fashion with sufficient details to 

satisfy the Court that such observations are adequately informed. Ms. Flores also should 

confer with Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant in connection with any future request for 

appointment of guardian ad litem and indicate in her application whether 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant concurs or objects to the proposed appointment.

(Doc. 33 at 3) (emphasis added).

In her renewed petitions (Docs. 39, 45), Flores has not remedied two deficiencies noted 

with emphasis above. First, the petitions do not comply with Local Rule 202 – they are not 

supported by sworn declarations by candidates proposed to serve as guardian ad litem. The Court 

previously has admonished Flores (as a pro se litigant) and her daughter (who has appeared in 

Court with her in the past) of Flores’ obligation to become familiar with and comply with this 

Court’s Local Rules and directed Flores to the Court’s website to obtain a copy of those rules. 

Nevertheless, the Court attaches as Exhibit 1 hereto the text of Local Rule 202 and directs Flores 

once again to comply with this rule in any future petition for the appointment of guardian ad 

litem.

Separately, Flores’ renewed petitions fail to comply with the Court’s direction in its 

earlier order that she confer with Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant and set forth in her renewed 

petition Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s position regarding the requested appointment.

Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Flores separately moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 40). The Court may 

authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees “by a person who submits 

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person...possesses (and) that the person is 

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Here, Flores is not obligated to pay fees for the commencement of this action; hence, she 

is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

///

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 46 Filed 08/01/24 Page 2 of 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

3

Request for Access to CM/ECF and PACER

Flores separately requests “that all further documents be served to myself, Lupe C. Flores 

(Nunes), electronically via the Court’s electronic filing system.” (Doc. 45 at 1).

Under the Court’s Local Rules, pro se parties are required to “file and serve paper 

documents” and “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned 

Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 133(b)(2) (emphasis omitted). Any request for an 

exception to this rule must be submitted as a stipulation between the parties or a “written motion 

setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” Local Rule 133(b)(3).

It is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse 

Solutions LLC, No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB, 2013 WL 2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 

2013). Here, Plaintiff’s filing contains no explanation or justification for access to the electronic 

filing system. (Doc. 45). Upon review of the pleadings in this action and Flores’ request, the 

Court finds that this action does not warrant an exception to the Local Rule.

Request for Service of Answer/Crossclaim of Concepcion Flores Molina

Flores separately requests a copy of the crossclaim of Defendant/Cross-complainant 

Concepcion Flores Molina. (Doc. 45 at 1).

The Court notes that the requested pleading previously was served on Flores. See (Doc. 9-

3). Further, parties are not entitled to request the Clerk of the Court to provide them with copies 

of filings publicly available. Nevertheless, as a one-time courtesy, the Court will direct the Clerk 

of the Court to provide Flores – as well as the person identified in her filings as Power of 

Attorney (Dawn M. Harris) – with copies of the requested pleading.

Miscellaneous

As the Court previously has admonished Flores, her decision to proceed without 

representation puts her at a disadvantage – navigating civil litigation in federal courts presents 

challenges that a party untrained in the practice of law ordinarily will be unable to handle nearly 

as competently as a licensed attorney. As it does with all pro se parties, this Court has and will 

continue to extend to Flores every appropriate, reasonable accommodation in light of her 

unrepresented status.

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 46 Filed 08/01/24 Page 3 of 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

4

However, Flores’ inability or unwillingness to comply with this Court’s Local Rules and 

orders will not be tolerated. In addition to her failure to remedy deficiencies in her renewed 

petitions for the appointment of a guardian ad litem (as discussed above), Flores failed to comply 

with this Court’s order of June 18 directing her to answer the cross-complaint by July 2, 2024. 

Her failure prompted Defendant/Cross-Complainant Molina to file a motion for default judgment 

(Docs. 37, 42), which Flores failed to timely oppose.

Flores is once again admonished that her failure to adequately participate in this litigation 

puts her at risk of defaulting and suffering an adverse judgment. The Court will grant one final 

21-day extension of time within which to file a petition for guardian ad litem and response to 

crossclaim.

Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Flores’ renewed petitions for appointment of guardian ad litem (Docs. 39, 45) are 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

2. Flores’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 40) is DENIED;

3. Flores’ request for electronic filing (Doc. 45) is DENIED;

4. Flores is granted one final 21-day extension of time from the date of service of this 

order within which to file a renewed petition for guardian ad litem and response to 

crossclaim.

5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order and a copy of the 

Answer/Crossclaim of Defendant/Cross-Claimant Concepcion Flores Molina (Doc. 9) 

on Dawn M. Harris at the following address:

3286 Webb Street

Walkertown, NC 27051

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 46 Filed 08/01/24 Page 4 of 4