UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 5, 2010
GLEN BEATY, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, JEFFREY GROSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND SCOTT PAYN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS BY DAVID M. HADDEN. M.D. CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR PLAINTIFF GLEN BEATY
Plaintiff Glen Beaty filed this civil rights action on September 23, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Defendants were served on September 25, 2009, and by subsequent stipulation, Defendants were granted an additional sixty (60) days from the October 19, 2009, order, within which to file their pleadings. (Docs. 9-12, 14.) On December 7, 2009, a second stipulation permitted Defendants an additional sixty (60) days, through and until March 5, 2010, within which to file answers to the complaint. (Doc. 22.)
On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second Petition for Appointment of David M. Hadden, M.D., Fresno County Public Guardian, as Guardian ad Litem on Behalf of Plaintiff Glen Beaty. (Doc. 18.) Defendants did not filed any opposition.
On January 21, 2010, this Court issued an Order granting the petition for appointment of the public guardian as Plaintiff's guardian ad litem, conditioned upon the filing of a "voluntary acceptance and acknowledgment of the appointment in writing . . .." (See Doc. 28 at 5.)
On February 3, 2010, a Stipulation and Order was filed with the Court, wherein the time for the filing of written voluntary acceptance and acknowledgment of the appointment was extended through and including February 24, 2010. Additionally, Defendants were granted an extension of ten days from the date of the aforementioned filing within which to file a response to the complaint. (Doc. 30.)
On February 4, 2010, Objections to the Court's conditional order were filed by David M. Hadden, M.D., Public Guardian. Dr. Hadden objects to voluntary acceptance of the appointment due to a conflict of interest, staff's inexperience with civil rights litigation, and staffing limitations that would be impacted by the amount of time such an appointment would necessarily involve. (Doc. 33.)
In light of the foregoing, this Court VACATES its conditional order of January 21, 2010, and SETS this matter for a status hearing on February 23, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10, wherein the personal appearance of counsel for all parties is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.