Saunders v. King County et al, No. 2:2010cv01456 - Document 83 (W.D. Wash. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 80 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(MD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Saunders v. King County et al Doc. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CASE NO. C10-1456-RSM DANIEL MACIO SAUNDERS, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM v. 1) KING COUNTY, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY DANIEL T. SATTERBERG ESQ., and JOHN AND JANE DOE DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, and; 2) THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a Municipal Corporation, CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN DIAZ, and JOHN/JANE DOE POLICE OFFICERS. 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem (Dkt. #80). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 23 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Background 3 This action was precipitated by an incident in which Plaintiff broke through the window 4 of a church, destroyed paintings and shattered a trophy case, and caused such severe injury to 5 himself that his blood, spilled throughout the church, resulted a biohazard. Dkt. #16, Ex. 1. 6 Police found Plaintiff outside of the church, nude, holding a license plate of a nearby parked 7 truck that was also covered in blood. Plaintiff was hospitalized and booked into jail. Following 8 his accidental release thereafter, Plaintiff was engaged in a severe altercation with three arresting 9 officers and required additional hospitalization. Dkt. No. 5. 10 Prior to and since his arrest, Mr. Saunders has been treated by various medical and 11 mental health providers including, but not limited to, the University of Washington Medical 12 Center, Harborview Medical Center, Sound Mental Health, Seattle Mental Health, Western State 13 Hospital (a psychiatric hospital), and the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health 14 (King County Jail). Declaration of Karen L. Cobb (“Cobb Decl.”), ¶ 3. During the initial 15 phases of this litigation, Mr. Saunders was “barely … able to maintain a functional relationship 16 with counsel in answering questions and making decisions and scheduling and coordinating 17 meetings and to be able to have explained to him so that he understood the facts, the law, and the 18 nature of the case.” Dkt. #80, p. 3 (motion) and Dkt. # 81, ¶ 3 (counsel’s representation, signed 19 and sworn under penalty of perjury, that statements made in Plaintiff’s motion are true). More 20 recently, Plaintiff has demonstrated a “discernibly diminished ability to be asked and answer 21 questions and make decisions associated with preparing for and participating in a deposition.” 22 Id. Plaintiff’s sister, Carol Barton, has purportedly also observed that Mr. Saunders’ ability to 23 respond to questions and make decisions has diminished in recent weeks. Dkt. #80, p. 4 & Dkt. 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 2 1 #81, ¶3. Mr. Saunders was recently hospitalized at Harborview Medical Center after being 2 assaulted and suffered from short-term memory loss and is currently being assisted by the Brain 3 Injury Association of Washington. Dkt. #80, p. 3-4 & Ex. A. 4 Mr. Saunders “needs and welcomes assistance in the form of a guardian ad litem” and 5 Mr. Saunders’ sister, Ms. Barton, has agreed to act as Mr. Saunders’ guardian ad litem. Dkt. 6 #80, p. 5 & Dkt. #81, ¶3. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. 7 B. Appointment of Guardian ad Litem 8 “Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) requires a court to take whatever measures it deems proper to 9 protect an incompetent person during litigation.” U.S. v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, th 10 Situated in Klickitat County, State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9 Cir. 1986). The Ninth 11 Circuit has established that “[i]f an infant or incompetent person is unrepresented, the court 12 should not enter a judgment which operates as a judgment on the merits without complying with 13 Rule 17(c).” Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989); Allen v. Calderon, 408 14 F.3d 1150, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Because there was sufficient evidence of Allen's 15 incompetence, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for failure to 16 prosecute without first holding a competency hearing or otherwise considering his claim.”). “The 17 absence of a guardian ad litem in this case prejudices the ability of the court to request counsel to 18 represent [plaintiff], puts the due process rights of [plaintiff] in jeopardy in any trial that 19 proceeds absent such representation, and effectively precludes the possibility of a binding 20 contract of settlement because of the incompetency of one of the parties.” United States v. 30.64 21 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d at 805. 22 “Capacity to sue or be sued is determined ... for an individual who is not acting in a 23 representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1). Thus, 24 Plaintiff's mental capacity to sue or maintain this lawsuit is controlled by the law of Plaintiff's ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 3 1 domicile, here Washington. In Washington, a guardian ad litem should be appointed “when the 2 court is reasonably convinced that the litigant is not competent to understand the significance of 3 legal proceedings and the effect of such proceedings on the litigant's best interests.” Graham v. 4 Graham, 40 Wash.2d 64, 66-67, 240 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1952). 5 Here, Plaintiff consents to the appointment of a guardian ad litem; Plaintiff’s counsel 6 represents that such an appointment is warranted; Plaintiff’s sister has agreed to serve as 7 Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem; and Defendants do not oppose the appointment. Based on the facts 8 presented and representations by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not 9 competent to understand the nature or significance of these legal proceedings and must be 10 appointed a guardian ad litem to protect his interests in this litigation. Plaintiff’s sister, Carol 11 Barton, is hereby appointed as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem. 12 C. Duties and responsibilities of a Guardian ad litem 13 Generally, the role of the guardian ad litem in a federal lawsuit is to protect the interests 14 of the incompetent person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). A guardian may negotiate a proposed 15 settlement or compromise, but the Court must conduct “its own inquiry to determine whether the 16 settlement serves the best interests” of the plaintiff. Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 17 1181 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotations omitted). In reviewing a proposed settlement, a district 18 court will consider “whether the net amount distributed to [a] minor plaintiff [or incompetent 19 person] in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor's [or 20 incompetent person's] specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182. “It is the court's 21 order approving the settlement that vests the guardian ad litem with the legal power to enforce 22 the agreement.” Id. at 1079. 23 Further, after appointing a guardian ad litem, a district court “maintains a continuing 24 obligation to supervise the guardian ad litem's work.” Neilson v. Colgate–Palmolive Co., 199 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 4 1 F.3d 642, 652 (2nd Cir. 1999) (citing Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir. 1978); 2 Noe v. True, 507 F.2d 9, 12 (6th Cir.1974)). The district court may remove the guardian ad litem 3 at any time. Hull by Hull v. United States, 53 F.3d 1125, 1127 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that 4 parties seeking to challenge the decisions of a guardian ad litem have a remedy of applying to the 5 court to have the guardian ad litem removed or to have another guardian ad litem appointed). 6 III. CONCLUSION 7 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response, and the remainder of the 8 record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 9 (1) Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem (Dkt. #80) is 10 hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s sister, Ms. Carol Barton, shall serve as Plaintiff’s 11 guardian ad litem in this matter as set forth above. 12 (2) Consistent with the Court’s previous order granting Defendants’ motion to compel 13 (Dkt. #59), Plaintiff shall serve his answers and/or supplemental answers to 14 Interrogatories No. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 17 and Request for Production No. 3 within fourteen 15 (14) days of entry and notice of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order will 16 result in sanctions. 17 (3) The stay of all pretrial deadlines (Dkt. #72) is hereby lifted. Many such deadlines, 18 however, have passed or are no longer practically feasible. Accordingly, the parties 19 shall submit a stipulated proposed amended scheduling order to the Court within 20 fourteen (14) days of entry and notice of this Order. The proposed amended 21 scheduling order shall contain a mediation deadline of no later than September 7, 22 2012. 23 // 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 5 1 2 3 Dated this 9th day of August 2012. 4 A 5 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
