United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending
before the court is plaintiff's motion for a competency
hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem. Also
pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to seal
documents filed in support of the motion for a competency
hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem. (ECF No.
136.)
For the
reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion to seal is
granted. Plaintiff's motion for a competency hearing and
for appointment of a guardian ad litem is denied.
Motion
to Seal
Plaintiff
has moved to seal his motion for a competency hearing and for
appointment of a guardian ad litem and the medical records
attached to the motion. Plaintiff's motion for a
competency hearing and for appointment of a guardian ad litem
discusses the medical records attached to the motion.
Two
standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a
“compelling reasons” standard, which applies to
dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard,
which applies to non-dispositive discovery type motions.
See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Pintos v. Pac.
Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2010). Courts determine whether good cause exists to protect
the information from being disclosed to the public by
“balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
confidentiality.” Id. at 1180 (quoting
Phillips ex re. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002).)
Because
plaintiff's motion for a competency hearing and for
appointment of a guardian ad litem is a non-dispositive
motion, the undersigned applies the good cause standard to
consider plaintiff's motion to seal. After reviewing
plaintiff's motion for a competency hearing and for
appointment of a guardian ad litem, and the attached medical
records, the undersigned finds good cause to seal these
documents. These documents are only relevant to
plaintiff's motion for a competency hearing and for
appointment of a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff has not sought
to use the information in these pleadings in support of the
merits of the instant action. Accordingly, plaintiff's
motion to seal these documents is granted.
Motion
for Competency Hearing and For Appointment of Guardian Ad
Litem
Legal
Standard
Under
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 17, courts can appoint a
guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order to
protect a minor or incompetent person.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
17(c)(2); see also Local Rule 202(a). The court is
under a “legal obligation to consider whether an
incompetent person is adequately protected.” United
States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th
Cir. 1986)); see also Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d
1303, 1310 n.6 (9th Cir. 2014). However, the obligation of
the court to appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant to Rule
17(c) does not arise until after a determination of
incompetence has been made by the court in which the issue
was raised. See, e.g., Forte v. County
of Merced, 2013 WL 3282957, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 27,
2013) (citing Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care
Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 201 (2d Cir. 2003)).
The
standard for determining competency is supplied by the law of
the plaintiff's domicile. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
17(b)(1). Plaintiff is domiciled in California. Under
California law, a party is incompetent “if he or she
lacks the capacity to understand the nature or consequences
of the proceeding, or is unable to assist counsel in the
preparation of the case.” Golden Gate Way, LLC v.
Stewart, 2012 WL 4482053, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28,
2012) (citing In re Jessica G., 93 Cal.App.4th 1180,
1186 (2001)); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
372(a) (“When ... a person who lacks legal capacity to
make decisions ... is a party, that person shall appear
either by a guardian or conservator of the estate or by a
guardian ad litem.”).
Under
Rule 17(c), a district court must hold a competency hearing
“when substantial evidence of incompetence is
presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150,
1153 (9th Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit has not clearly
stated what constitutes “substantial evidence” of
incompetence warranting such a hearing. See Hoang Minh
Tran v. Gore, 2013 WL 1625418, at *3 (S.D. Cal. April
15, 2013); see also Shack v. Knipp, 2012 WL 4111652,
at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012). However, the Ninth Circuit
has indicated that sworn declarations from the allegedly
incompetent litigant, sworn declarations or letters from
treating psychiatrists or psychologists, and medical records
may be considered in this regard. See Allen, 408
F.3d at 1152-54; see also Hoang Minh Tran, 2013 WL
1625418, at *3. Such evidence must speak to the court's
concern as to whether the person in question is able to
meaningfully take part in the proceedings. See AT&T
Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F.Supp.3d 1042, 1050 (E.D.
Cal. 2015) (citing In re Christina B., 19
Cal.App.4th 1441, 1450 (1993)).
Analysis
In the
motion for a competency hearing and for appointment of a
guardian ad litem, plaintiff argues that his mental illness
has “taken from him” the cognitive skills
necessary for him to represent himself without the assistance
of counsel or a guardian ad litem. Plaintiff alleges that he
has and will continue to experience frequent mental health
crises. In the motion for a competency hearing, plaintiff
describes his mental health diagnoses, his mental health
history and the medication he takes to treat his mental
health conditions. The undersigned has ...