Hall v. Frauenheim et al

Filing 53

ORDER STAYING 43 Motion for Reconsideration and REFERRING Matter to the Magistrate Judge in Order to Conduct a Competency Hearing signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/21/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RICHARD B. HALL,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-263 AWI SAB

Plaintiff
v.
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al.,
Defendants

ORDER STAYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
REFERRING MATTER TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN ORDER TO
CONDUCT A COMPETENCY
HEARING

14
15

(Doc. No. 43)

16
17

Plaintiff Richard Hall is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

18

civil rights action. Hall is a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, but the acts that form the basis

19

of this lawsuit occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison.

20
21
22

On March 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge screened Hall’s first amended complaint (“FAC”).
See Doc. No. 35. The Magistrate Judge dismissed the FAC with leave to amend.
On April 17, 2017, Hall filed objections, which this Court has taken to be a motion for

23

reconsideration. See Doc. No. 43. As part the motion for reconsideration, certain representations

24

were made. Significantly, the motion states that this matter is being pursued through a non-court-

25

appointed next friend and that Hall is appearing through the next friend. See id. The motion also

26

indicates that Hall may lack the capacity to prosecute this case, and notes that Hall has been given

27

a “DDZ” status and has cognitive limitations, a nerve palsy in his right hand, an inability to read,

28

and memory problems, all of which are confirmed in medical findings. See id.

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 states in pertinent part that an “incompetent person

2

who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad

3

litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem – or issue another appropriate order – to protect

4

a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Rule

5

17(c)(2) requires a district court to “take whatever measures it deems proper to protect an

6

incompetent person during litigation.” Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1311 (9th Cir. 2014)

7

(quoting United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). “Ordinarily,

8

when a substantial question exists regarding the mental competence of a party proceeding pro se,

9

the proper procedure is for the district court to conduct a hearing to determine competence, so a

10

guardian ad litem can be appointed, if necessary.” Harris v. Mangum, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL

11

3027545, *3 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)); see

12

Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989). If a party is found to be incompetent,

13

there are a number of orders or procedures that can be issued in order to protect the incompetent

14

litigant’s interests. See Davis, 745 F.3d at 1311; Krain, 880 F.2d at 1121. District courts have

15

broad discretion in fashioning such protective orders. Harris, --- F.3d at ----, 2017 WL 3027545 at

16

*3 (citing Davis, 745 F.3d at 1311).

17

dismiss the case without prejudice.” Krain, 880 F.2d at 1121.

18

However, if “a party fails to cooperate . . . the court may

Here, based on the representations in the motion for reconsideration, as well as other

19

documents in the file, the Court has concerns over Hall’s competency to pursue this case. Under

20

these circumstances, the Court finds that the appropriate course is to refer the matter to the

21

Magistrate Judge in order to conduct a competency hearing. See Harris, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL

22

3027545 at *3; Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153; Krain, 880 F.2d at 1121. Upon completion of the

23

competency hearing, the Magistrate Judge shall issue a Findings and Recommendations regarding

24

Hall’s competency. See 28 U.S.C. § 626(b). If the Magistrate Judge finds that Hall is not

25

competent, the Findings and Recommendations shall include recommendations regarding any

26

appropriate procedures or orders that would protect Hall’s interests and permit this case to move

27

forward.

28
2

1

ORDER

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purposes of issuing a

4

Findings and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s competency and possible

5

orders and procedures to protect Plaintiff’s interests, if the Magistrate Judge finds

6

that Plaintiff is not competent; and

7

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and the March 27, 2017 Screening Order’s

8

deadline in which to file a Second Amended Complaint, are STAYED until this

9

Court rules on the forthcoming Findings and Recommendations.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3