Bouie v. Willox et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/27/2017 DENYING without prejudice 11 Request for the Appointment of a Next Friend. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIRK JA’ONG BOUIE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0624 JAM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. WILLOX, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested the

18

appointment of a next friend. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff alleges that he is not able to do his own legal

19

work due to “mental illness, namely, Major Depressive Disorder, Severe, with psychotic features;

20

Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood; Mood Disorder; Post-traumatic

21

Stress Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder; [and a] history of lower back pain.” Id. at 2. He

22

further alleges that his illness incapacitates him and that he can no longer afford to pay other

23

inmates to help him. Id. at 2-3.

24

In modern practice, the terms next friend and guardian ad litem refer to the same office.

25

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1053 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citations

26

omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 requires a court to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or

27

issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented

28

in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “A party proceeding pro se in a civil lawsuit is entitled to
1

1

a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v.

2

Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). In determining whether substantial evidence of

3

incompetence is presented, the district court may consider sworn declarations from the pro se

4

party or other inmates, sworn declarations or letters from treating psychiatrists or psychologists,

5

and his medical history. See id. at 1152.

6

A person’s capacity to sue is measured by the standard of the law of his domicile. Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 17(b)(1). Here, that means California state law. “In California, a party is incompetent if

8

he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding, or is

9

unable to assist counsel in the preparation of the case.” Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Stewart,

10

2012 WL 4482053, at *2, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140780, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012)

11

(citing In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

12

§ 372; In re Sara D., 87 Cal. App. 4th 661, 666-67 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)). This is a very high bar

13

for establishing incompetence and as addressed below, plaintiff’s participation to date has not

14

demonstrated incompetence. As such, the court does not find grounds to engage in a competency

15

determination.

16

Plaintiff contends that various mental issues incapacitate him.1 However, he has not

17

provided any objective evidence of his medical history or sworn declarations or letters from

18

treating psychiatrists to support his claim of mental incapacity. Even if the undersigned were to

19

accept plaintiff’s allegations of his mental health diagnoses as true, a diagnosis by itself does not

20

establish incompetence. Plaintiff’s filings indicate that he does understand the nature and

21

consequences of the proceeding or that he would at least be able to assist in the preparation of the

22

case.

23

In the present motion, plaintiff contends with reasoned arguments that he is incapacitated

24

and thereby requires the appointment of a next friend to his case. The level of understanding

25

exhibited in plaintiff’s motion, in and of itself, however, demonstrates that plaintiff is not

26

incompetent, especially given California’s stringent requirements. In his motion, plaintiff

27
28

1

Plaintiff’s back pain is not relevant to the incompetence inquiry.
2

1

presented a legal argument, supported it with allegations and an applicable rule, and cited some

2

case law. While plaintiff’s argument may have fallen short of its mark, it shows that plaintiff

3

understands the nature of the motion or that at a minimum he would be able to assist in the

4

preparation of his case. In other words, plaintiff’s motion does not provide substantial evidence

5

of incompetence.

6

Similarly, plaintiff has filed other documents in this case which are inconsistent with

7

incompetence. For example, plaintiff filed a detailed complaint replete with an exhibit list and

8

attached exhibits (ECF No. 1), which suggests that plaintiff is capable of understanding the nature

9

and consequences of this proceeding. More recently, plaintiff filed a request for status. ECF

10

No. 9. In that request, plaintiff stated that he chose to have a district court judge hear his case

11

instead of a magistrate judge, noted the date that he last heard from the court, and stated that he

12

would like to know if there has been any further action in his case since then. Id. He also

13

informed the court of a change to his address. Id. This demonstrates that plaintiff is capable of

14

understanding the nature and consequences of this proceeding.

15

Additionally, while plaintiff argues that he has depended on other inmates to help him in

16

the past, he does not specify the extent of his reliance and relying on the assistance of other

17

inmates, without more, does not demonstrate incompetence. Although it seems that a fellow

18

inmate, Mr. Shannon, helped to prepare the present motion, it is brought and signed by plaintiff,

19

indicating that plaintiff assisted in its preparation and understands its purpose. Plaintiff further

20

contends that he cannot afford to continue to pay inmates to help him and states he would like the

21

appointment of a next friend so that he can work with Mr. Shannon, who will not charge him.2

22

ECF No. 11 at 2-3. However, the court does not consider lack of ability to pay when determining

23

whether a prisoner is incompetent.

24
25

Plaintiff contends that he is incompetent and requires the appointment of a next friend to
his case, but the record does not support this claim. The court has not been presented with

26
27
28

2

Apparently Mr. Shannon’s current housing assignment makes communication between the two
difficult and plaintiff seeks the appointment so that court documents can be sent directly to
Mr. Shannon. ECF No. 11 at 2-3.
3

1

substantial evidence that plaintiff is incompetent. Therefore, the court need not make a

2

competency determination, and does not reach the stage of deciding whether to appoint a next

3

friend.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a

5

next friend is DENIED without prejudice.

6

DATED: July 27, 2017.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4