Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anthony Coronado sued the City of Fresno, several named police officers, and the police chief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3, 2022. The Eastern District of California stayed the case from October 16, 2023, to August 22, 2025, because of a pending state criminal case. On August 24, 2026, Alma Rosa Coronado, who is Anthony's sister, petitioned to be appointed his guardian ad litem. The order does not describe the substance of the underlying civil claims.
The petition represented that she is a responsible, competent adult and that Anthony has a history of traumatic brain injury, psychosis-related conditions, post-traumatic stress symptoms following a June 2020 police shooting, and a range of cognitive and memory difficulties. These were the petitioner's assertions; the court made no findings about them. She also filed a consent declaration stating she is competent and holds no interest adverse to him. Anthony is represented by counsel.
Under Rule 17(c)(2) a representative may sue on behalf of an incompetent person, and the court must consider whether such a person is adequately protected. But the duty to appoint a guardian ad litem arises only after a determination that the person is actually incompetent. Competency is governed by California law, under which a party is incompetent if he or she lacks capacity to understand the nature or consequences of the proceeding or cannot assist counsel. Local Rule 202(c) requires that, where the minor or incompetent person is represented by counsel, the court be told how the attorney was employed, whether the attorney became involved at the instance of the opposing party, any relationship to that party, and any compensation.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer denied the petition without prejudice. This is not a ruling on Anthony Coronado's competency and not a final judgment; the case remains pending, and the court expressly deferred its competency inquiry until a new petition is filed.
The court gave two reasons. First, the petition lacked any statement from Plaintiff's counsel disclosing the matters Local Rule 202(c) requires. The court said it requires full disclosure of the terms of counsel's employment, whether counsel became involved at the insistence of any defendant, any relationship between counsel and defendants, and any compensation received or expected, and it cited another Eastern District order that required the same. Second, the petition set out the claimed conditions in a single general paragraph without medical support. The court noted that, under Ninth Circuit authority and Eastern District decisions, it may consider sworn declarations from the litigant, sworn declarations or letters from treating providers, and medical records. It also cited a decision declining to grant such a petition without medical evidence addressing diagnosis, plan, and prognosis.
The court acknowledged that evidence before it indicates Mr. Coronado may be incompetent to represent his interests, but it was reluctant to appoint the petitioner on a noncompliant and thinly supported petition. It invoked its duty to take appropriate measures to protect an individual's interests during litigation. The petition was denied without prejudice to a new petition that addresses the identified deficiencies; the order states no refiling deadline.
Key Takeaways
- Where a plaintiff is represented by counsel, a guardian ad litem petition in the Eastern District of California should include the attorney-interest disclosures required by Local Rule 202(c).
- A short, general list of diagnoses and symptoms is not enough; the court looks for sworn declarations, treating-provider letters or declarations, or medical records addressing the person's condition.
- The order does not decide whether Mr. Coronado is incompetent, and its remark that evidence suggests he may be is not a finding.
- Denial was without prejudice, so a new petition may be filed, and the order sets no deadline for doing so.
- Until a guardian ad litem is appointed or competency is resolved, the case remains pending, and the court keeps its duty to protect the plaintiff's interests.
Why It Matters
This is a short, unreported district court order that applies established Rule 17(c) principles and a local rule; it is not binding precedent and carries only persuasive value. Its practical use is as a checklist: counsel seeking a guardian ad litem for a represented adult must address both the attorney disclosures and medical documentation before the court will reach the competency question.
The order also shows how courts balance protecting a potentially incapacitated litigant against the need for a sound evidentiary record. Rather than appointing a family member on thin papers, or ending the inquiry, the court left room for a better-supported petition.