Opinion
CASE NO: 8:05-cv-684-T-23TBM.
April 23, 2007
ORDER
The plaintiff stipulates (Doc. 147) to the appointment of a guardian ad litem "only in consideration of costs savings and time effectiveness for all parties involved." However, Rule 17(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem only in the case of "an infant or incompetent person" but not in the case of economy or efficiency. If the mental competency of a litigant is at issue, a district court should "conduct a hearing to determine whether the party is competent." Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989); In re Chicago Rock Island and Pac. R.R. Co., 788 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that a district court's authority to appoint a guardian ad litem may become a duty if a mental incompetent is a party to federal litigation). See also Yoder v. Patla, 234 F.3d 1275 (7th Cir. 2000). Indeed, if "a party exhibits a limited ability to understand a proceeding affecting her rights, the court must undertake even more strenuous efforts to explain the process and give the party a meaningful opportunity to respond." Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642, 658 (2d Cir. 1999).
Because the plaintiff's competency to proceed remains undetermined, no appointment of a guardian ad litem is available. Accordingly, the plaintiff's offer to stipulate to the appointment of a guardian ad litem is REJECTED and (as previously scheduled) an evidentiary hearing to determine the plaintiff's competency will occur on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 1:30 P.M., in Courtroom 15A, United States Courthouse, 801 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The plaintiff shall personally attend the hearing.
ORDERED.