See e.g., Syfert v. City of Rome, No. 6:19-CV-0775 (GTS) (ML), 2022 WL 2180455, at *15 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2022) (finding comments from Plaintiff's sister about his disabilities, their effect on his day-to-day functioning, and a letter from CNY Brain & Spine Neurosurgery to contain nothing undermining Plaintiff's competency and not the type of verifiable evidence that require a guardian ad litem); Chapman v. Ring's End, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01084 (VAB), 2020 WL 3430350, at *5 (D. Conn. June 23, 2020) (finding plaintiff's wife's and counsel's lay representations that plaintiff was impaired in understanding and producing speech to be insufficient to appoint a guardian); Williams v. New York State Off. of Mental Health, No. 10-CV-1022 (SLT) (JO), 2011 WL 2690088, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 2708378 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2011) (even where plaintiff had a history of mental illness and the Court reviewed clinical evaluations of Plaintiff, the Court found that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Plaintiff was incompetent and that a guardian ad litem should be appointed); Santiago v. C.O. Campisi Shield No. 4592, 91 F.Supp.2d 665, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding appointment of a guardian ad litem to an illiterate plaintiff “would be inappropriate under any standard” because he was not “incompetent in the sense contempla
Indeed, as set forth during the most recent telephone conference, despite asserted short-term memory problems, Plaintiff asserts that he is able to litigate this case and his conduct up until this point suggests the same. The Court also is mindful that the power to appoint a guardian “is limited by the Due Process Clause because plaintiffs ‘possess[ ] liberty interests in avoiding the stigma of being found incompetent . . . and in retaining personal control over the litigation[.]” Chapman v. Ring's End, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01084 (VAB), 2020 WL 3430350, at *6 (D. Conn. June 23, 2020) (citing Bowen v. Rubin, 213 F.Supp.2d 220, 224 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)). For these reasons, the Court will not inquire into Plaintiff's competency.
See e.g. Syfert v. City of Rome, No. 619CV0775GTSML, 2022 WL 2180455, at *15 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2022) (finding comments from Plaintiff's sister about his disabilities, their effect on his day-to-day functioning, and a letter from CNY Brain & Spine Neurosurgery to contain nothing undermining Plaintiff's competency and not the type of verifiable evidence that require a guardian ad litem); Chapman v. Ring's End, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01084 (VAB), 2020 WL 3430350, at *5 (D. Conn. June 23, 2020) (finding plaintiff's wife's and counsel's lay representations that plaintiff was impaired in understanding and producing speech to be insufficient to appoint a guardian); Williams v. New York State Off. of Mental Health, No. 10-CV-1022 SLT JO, 2011 WL 2690088, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-CV-1022 SLT JO, 2011 WL 2708378 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2011) (even where plaintiff had a history of mental illness and the Court reviewed clinical evaluations of Plaintiff, the Court found that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Plaintiff was incompetent and that a guardian ad litem should be appointed); Santiago v. C.O. Campisi Shield No. 4592, 91 F.Supp.2d 665, 667 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding appointment of a guardian ad litem to an illiterate plaintiff “would be inappropriate under any standard” because he was not “incompetent in the
A court, however, only need to consider an application under Rule 17 upon the receipt of “verifiable evidence from a mental health professional demonstrating that the party is being or has been treated for mental illness of the type that would render him or her legally incompetent.” Chapman v. Ring's End, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01084 (VAB), 2020 WL 3430350, at *4 (D. Conn. June 23, 2020) (“Where there is no verifiable evidence of a plaintiff's incapacity, the Court therefore is not required to consider whether Rule 17(c) applies”); Perri v. City of New York, 350 Fed.Appx. 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[T]the duty to appoint a guardian ad litem. . .is triggered by actual documentation or testimony of mental incompetency”) (quotes omitted). The Second Circuit has held that while there is nothing in Rule 17 that prevents a court from considering, sua sponte, the appropriateness of appointing a guardian ad litem for a litigant whose behavior raises a significant question regarding his or her mental competency, there is nothing in Rule 17 that requires a court to look into the necessity of appointing a guardian ad litem absent verifiable evidence of mental incapacity.