T.G. v. Kern County, 1:18-cv-0257-JLT. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191104b61
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF T.G. TO FILE A MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM OR FILE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO COMPETENCY JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs assert they suffered violations of their civil rights and discrimination due to their disabilities while held at Kern County's juvenile detention facilities. The Court's review of the docket and revealed that the minor plaintiffs did not seek appointment of guardians ad litem to bring their claims
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF T.G. TO FILE A MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM OR FILE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO COMPETENCY JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs assert they suffered violations of their civil rights and discrimination due to their disabilities while held at Kern County's juvenile detention facilities. The Court's review of the docket and revealed that the minor plaintiffs did not seek appointment of guardians ad litem to bring their claims...
More
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF T.G. TO FILE A MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM OR FILE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO COMPETENCY
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs assert they suffered violations of their civil rights and discrimination due to their disabilities while held at Kern County's juvenile detention facilities. The Court's review of the docket and revealed that the minor plaintiffs did not seek appointment of guardians ad litem to bring their claims. Because Plaintiff T.G. is no longer a minor, the Court did not previously order T.G. to seek appointment of a guardian ad litem. Significantly, however, the Court now notes that Plaintiffs previously alleged that "[i]n 2017, the Kern County Juvenile Court found T.G. incompetent under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 709." (Doc. 1 at 34, ¶ 186)
If T.G. remains incompetent, his claims may only be brought "by a next friend or a guardian ad litem." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). In addition, pursuant to Local Rule 202,
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.
Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)). However, there is no evidence identified regarding whether T.G. has been restored to competency or whether a guardian ad litem is necessary for T.G. to prosecute his claims in this action.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: T.G. SHALL file a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem no later than November 8, 2019. In the alternative, T.G. SHALL provide evidence that he has been restored to competency.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
