Owens v. Defazio et al
Filing
139
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/13/19 GRANTING 136 Motion to file under seal his motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem, and the attached medical records and DENYING plaintiff's motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THEON OWENS,
12
13
14
No. 2: 16-cv-2750 JAM KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
JOSEPH DEGAZIO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a competency hearing and
19
for appointment of a guardian ad litem. Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to seal
20
documents filed in support of the motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a
21
guardian ad litem. (ECF No. 136.)
22
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion to seal is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for a
23
competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem is denied.
24
Motion to Seal
25
Plaintiff has moved to seal his motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a
26
guardian ad litem and the medical records attached to the motion. Plaintiff’s motion for a
27
competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem discusses the medical records
28
attached to the motion.
1
Two standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons”
1
2
standard, which applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to
3
non-dispositive discovery type motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
4
1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir.
5
2010). Courts determine whether good cause exists to protect the information from being
6
disclosed to the public by “balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.”
7
Id. at 1180 (quoting Phillips ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213
8
(9th Cir. 2002).)
Because plaintiff’s motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad
9
10
litem is a non-dispositive motion, the undersigned applies the good cause standard to consider
11
plaintiff’s motion to seal. After reviewing plaintiff’s motion for a competency hearing and for
12
appointment of a guardian ad litem, and the attached medical records, the undersigned finds good
13
cause to seal these documents. These documents are only relevant to plaintiff’s motion for a
14
competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff has not sought to use
15
the information in these pleadings in support of the merits of the instant action. Accordingly,
16
plaintiff’s motion to seal these documents is granted.
17
Motion for Competency Hearing and For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
18
Legal Standard
19
Under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 17, courts can appoint a guardian ad litem or issue
20
another appropriate order to protect a minor or incompetent person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); see
21
also Local Rule 202(a). The court is under a “legal obligation to consider whether an
22
incompetent person is adequately protected.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d
23
796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1310 n.6 (9th Cir. 2014).
24
However, the obligation of the court to appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to Rule 17(c) does
25
not arise until after a determination of incompetence has been made by the court in which the
26
issue was raised. See, e.g., Forte v. County of Merced, 2013 WL 3282957, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June
27
27, 2013) (citing Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 2003)).
28
////
2
1
The standard for determining competency is supplied by the law of the plaintiff’s
2
domicile. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). Plaintiff is domiciled in California. Under California
3
law, a party is incompetent “if he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature or
4
consequences of the proceeding, or is unable to assist counsel in the preparation of the case.”
5
Golden Gate Way, LLC v. Stewart, 2012 WL 4482053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) (citing In
6
re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1180, 1186 (2001)); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372(a)
7
(“When ... a person who lacks legal capacity to make decisions ... is a party, that person shall
8
appear either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem.”).
9
Under Rule 17(c), a district court must hold a competency hearing “when substantial
10
evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005).
11
The Ninth Circuit has not clearly stated what constitutes “substantial evidence” of incompetence
12
warranting such a hearing. See Hoang Minh Tran v. Gore, 2013 WL 1625418, at *3 (S.D. Cal.
13
April 15, 2013); see also Shack v. Knipp, 2012 WL 4111652, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012).
14
However, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that sworn declarations from the allegedly incompetent
15
litigant, sworn declarations or letters from treating psychiatrists or psychologists, and medical
16
records may be considered in this regard. See Allen, 408 F.3d at 1152–54; see also Hoang Minh
17
Tran, 2013 WL 1625418, at *3. Such evidence must speak to the court’s concern as to whether
18
the person in question is able to meaningfully take part in the proceedings. See AT&T Mobility,
19
LLC v. Yeager, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1050 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing In re Christina B., 19 Cal.
20
App. 4th 1441, 1450 (1993)).
21
Analysis
22
In the motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem,
23
plaintiff argues that his mental illness has “taken from him” the cognitive skills necessary for him
24
to represent himself without the assistance of counsel or a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff alleges that
25
he has and will continue to experience frequent mental health crises. In the motion for a
26
competency hearing, plaintiff describes his mental health diagnoses, his mental health history and
27
the medication he takes to treat his mental health conditions. The undersigned has reviewed
28
plaintiff’s medical records regarding his mental health attached to his motion for a competency
3
1
2
hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem.
The undersigned acknowledges that plaintiff has been diagnosed with a mental illness for
3
which he receives treatment. However, the record in this case demonstrates that plaintiff is
4
capable of understanding the nature and consequences of this proceeding. Plaintiff has
5
competently litigated this action since he filed it approximately three years ago. The record
6
demonstrates that plaintiff has recently conducted discovery. On October 24, 2019, plaintiff filed
7
a 71 pages long motion to compel. (ECF No. 137.) Plaintiff’s October 24, 2019 motion to
8
compel is coherent and organized.
9
Despite having serious mental illness issues, plaintiff has competently litigated this action.
10
Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to meaningfully participate in these proceedings. The record
11
demonstrates that plaintiff has the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of these
12
proceedings. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff is competent to litigate this
13
action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a
14
guardian ad litem is denied.
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal his motion for a competency hearing and for
17
appointment of a guardian ad litem, and the attached medical records, (ECF No. 136)
18
is granted;
19
20
21
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad
litem is denied.
Dated: November 13, 2019
22
23
24
25
Owen2750.seal
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?