Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00024-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jasmine Rayan Garcia
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASMINE RAYAN GARCIA o/b/o 

C.P.J.C., a minor child,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:25-cv-00024-SKO

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

NOTICE OF ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION 

OR APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MINOR 

PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 

202(a)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jasmine Rayan Garcia on behalf of minor C.P.J.C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint 

on January 7, 2025, challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying 

an application for disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and 

instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) 

On January 8, 2025, the Court granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)

Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a suit by a minor may be 

brought or defended by “(A) a general guardian; (B) a committee; (C) a conservator; or (D) a like 

fiduciary.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(1). Thus, Rule 17(c)(1)(A) permits a “general guardian” to sue 

in federal court on behalf of a minor, and “[a] parent is a guardian who may so sue.” Doe ex rel. 

Sisco v. Weed Union Elementary Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-01145-GEB, 2013 WL 2666024, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (denying a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem as unnecessary because 

Case 1:25-cv-00024-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 2
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

nothing in the complaint indicated the minor plaintiff’s parents would not adequately protect her 

interests, nor was there evidence of a conflict of interest between the minor plaintiff and her 

parents); see also Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Remington, No. 2:12-cv-02821-GEB-CMK, 2013 

WL 3070629, *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2013) (finding no need to appoint parent guardian ad litem of 

defendant minor where nothing in the record suggested she had a conflict or would not protect the 

minor’s interests). The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that:

Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in 

defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent 

person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person 

shall present (1) appropriate evidence of the appointment of a 

representative for the minor or incompetent person under state law 

or (2) a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the 

Court, or, (3) a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such 

appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the 

minor or incompetent person. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(a) (emphasis added).

Here, the complaint indicates that this action was initiated by a parent of the minor Plaintiff. 

(See Doc. 1 at 1.) Thus, Plaintiff is required to present a showing satisfactory to the Court that no 

appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor, or, 

if necessary, a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. However, upon review of the 

docket, no notice of adequate representation nor application for the appointment of guardian ad 

litem has been filed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days from the date of 

entry of this order, Plaintiff shall present a showing satisfactory to the Court that no appointment 

of a guardian ad litem is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the minor or a motion for 

the appointment of a guardian ad litem that meets the requirements of Local Rule 202(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:25-cv-00024-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 2