Court Opinion

ID: 9506094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:42:54.586911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:42.126420
License: Public Domain

BERZON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition.
1. In the district court, Haworth presented an array of documents demonstrating that she suffered from severe depression and recurring suicidal ideations, and that these conditions impeded her ability to respond to the court’s orders in a timely manner. Because Haworth presented “substantial evidence of incompetence,” I would hold that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Haworth’s action “for failure to prosecute without first holding a competency hearing.” See Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2005). I would therefore vacate the judgment and remand to the district court so that it may consider in the first instance whether appointment of a guardian ad li-tem is appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c).
2. The majority relies on Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.1989), for the proposition that even “when a substantial question exists regarding a pro se litigant’s mental competence,” “a district court may dismiss without prejudice for failure to comply with an order,” without holding a competency hearing. Maj. at 578. The majority misreads Krain. That case held that “[t]he preferred procedure when a substantial question exists regarding the mental competence of a party proceeding pro se is for the district court to conduct” a competency hearing. Krain, 880 F.2d at 1121. Krain went on to note that because the party in that case had already refused to comply with an order necessary “to produce information needed to determine” his competency, dismissal without prejudice was also an appropriate remedy. Id.
Unlike in Krain, there is no evidence that Haworth refused to participate in competency determination proceedings. Haworth’s case therefore does not present the unique facts in Krain that might warrant departing from the general rule that “[a] party proceeding pro se in a civil lawsuit is entitled to a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153.