Bal

(PC) Hollis v. Bal

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 1, 20232:13-cv-02145California497 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, No. 2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. BAL, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem. ECF No. 185. He argues that either counsel or a guardian ad litem is required because he has suffered adverse consequences from his mental health issues and his medication has made it difficult for him to litigate. Pursuant to Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, courts are required to “appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect . . . [an] incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Without counsel, however, a plaintiff may not proceed through a guardian ad litem. See Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“It goes without saying that it is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys.”). Plaintiff does not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.