Kennard Davis v. James Walker
745 F.3d 1303
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kennard Lee Davis, a pro se prisoner diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and subject to long-term involuntary medication, sued California prison officials in two consolidated § 1983 actions alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and retaliation.
- Davis submitted psychiatric evidence and a federal habeas court had previously found him incompetent and appointed a guardian ad litem in that separate proceeding.
- Davis repeatedly moved in the § 1983 cases for appointment of a guardian ad litem (and alternatively counsel); the magistrate judge and district court were informed the Eastern District Pro Bono Coordinator had no volunteer available to serve.
- The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, an indefinite stay of both § 1983 cases until Davis was "restored to competency" and could represent himself; the court administratively closed the cases.
- Davis appealed the stay as effectively denying him access to the federal forum; the Ninth Circuit appointed pro bono appellate counsel and considered whether the district court abused its discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying appointment of a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c) and instead imposing an indefinite stay | Davis argued Rule 17(c) required appointment or other protective measures; an indefinite stay leaves him effectively out of court and unprotected | District court (and pro bono coordinator) argued no guardian was available and a stay was an appropriate alternative order under Rule 17(c) | The Ninth Circuit vacated the stay: the stay was not an "appropriate order" under Rule 17(c) because it left Davis unprotected and effectively dismissed his claims; remanded to consider appointment or other protective measures |
| Whether the stay order was immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Davis contended the indefinite stay made him effectively out of court and thus appealable | Respondent maintained the stay was interlocutory and not a final appealable decision | The court held the stay was appealable: it qualified under Moses H. Cone/Blue Cross as a lengthy/indefinite stay that effectively put plaintiff out of court and also met Cohen collateral-order criteria |
| Proper standard of review for district court’s decision under Rule 17(c) | Davis suggested de novo review because of alleged failure to protect incompetent litigant | Respondent argued abuse-of-discretion review applies | The court applied abuse-of-discretion review, finding the district court abused its discretion by not taking available alternative protective actions |
| What remedies were appropriate when no guardian ad litem was immediately available | Davis urged active steps to secure representation or alternative protections so his claims could proceed | District court relied on lack of available volunteers and stayed cases until competency restoration | The Ninth Circuit listed alternatives (seek broader recruitment, waiting list, periodic case management, appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1), etc.) and directed the district court on remand to consider appointing a guardian or another effective protective order |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (stay that effectively removes plaintiff from federal forum is appealable)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (lengthy or indefinite stays can place a plaintiff effectively out of court)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (collateral-order doctrine for immediate appeals)
- United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, 795 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court must consider Rule 17(c) protections for incompetent litigants)
- Gardner ex rel. Gardner v. Parson, 874 F.2d 131 (3d Cir. 1989) (Rule 17(c) protects incompetent litigants; court must not use rule to permit their interests to go unprotected)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (clarifies Moses H. Cone rationale; absolute certainty not required to find party effectively out of court)