Bennett v. Santa Clara County Superior Court

Background

David Bennett was in custody at Atascadero State Hospital and was proceeding without an attorney. He filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was incarcerated at the Yolo County Jail. The court had previously denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it found that he had sufficient funds in his inmate trust account. The court had extended the deadline to pay the fee three times and had also denied three earlier requests for appointment of a guardian ad litem.

Bennett filed a fourth motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem and objections to the earlier denials. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), a court must appoint a guardian ad litem, or issue another appropriate order, to protect an unrepresented minor or incompetent person. The court explained that appointment is within the trial court’s discretion.

Guardian ad litem motion

The court considered state-court records and medical records Bennett submitted. The state-court records showed that he had been committed to a state hospital and involuntarily medicated after authorities found that his conduct presented a danger of causing substantial physical harm to others because of a mental disorder or defect. The court stated that those records did not explain his mental disorder and did not, on their face, show that he was unable to pay the filing fee or prosecute a civil case.

The medical records identified several diagnoses, but also stated that Bennett was pleasant and cooperative, alert and oriented, did not respond to internal stimuli or have delusional thinking, had passed two competency-related assessments, and had no barriers to his progress. The court also noted that Bennett identified reading and writing as strengths. Based on these records and Bennett’s papers, the court concluded that he was capable of paying the filing fee and prosecuting the case at this stage. The court denied the current motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem.

Preliminary-injunction and temporary-restraining-order motion

Bennett also sought an order to show cause concerning a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against California Governor Newsom. The court stated that it could not grant the requested injunctive relief because Bennett had not paid the filing fee or been granted permission to proceed without paying it. The court also stated that Bennett had not provided notice of the motion to Newsom, who had not been served, or explained why notice was not provided. The court denied the motion for an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.

Filing-fee deadline and further filings

The court ordered Bennett to pay the full filing fee and administrative fee, totaling $402, by December 28, 2023. It stated that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not do so and that no further extension would be allowed without a showing of good cause. The court also prohibited Bennett from filing another guardian-ad-litem motion until he paid the fees and the court issued an order after its initial review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order on December 1, 2023.