Opinion

Gaddis v. United States

  • 381 F.3d 444
  • 2004 WL 1801198
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Aug 12, 2004
Status
Published
Author
King
On the bench
King, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Dennis, Clement, Prado, Pickering
Cited by
55 cases
Authority
More cited than 23.8%

stating that a guardian ad litem is an officer of the court whose role is to assist the court

How later courts described this case

  • stating that a guardian ad litem is an officer of the court whose role is to assist the court
  • noting, but not adopting, the Ninth Circuit’s position that private process servers’ fees are taxable costs under Section 1920(1)
  • “It is clear in this Circuit that Rule 17(c) authorizes and mandates that district courts appoint a guardian ad litem in the situation where the interests of the [incompetent person’s] general representatives … may conflict with the interests of the person … who might otherwise be represented by such general representatives.” (citations omitted)
  • acknowledging that Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (a)(1) apply to FTCA disputes

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*460 KING, Chief Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. For the reasons cogently explained in Parts II.A-B and III of Judge Smith’s dissenting opinion, I would hold that guardian ad litem fees cannot be taxed as costs of court under the authority of Rule 54(d) because they are not enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 . See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 , 107 S.Ct. 2494 , 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987). As to whether Rule 17 provides a separate source of authority, it could well be that the power to appoint a guardian ad litem carries with it an inherent power to order payment: out of the award, out of some res before the court, from the parents, or possibly from another private party before the court; the bounds of the district court’s authority in such practical matters are difficult to mark. But, whatever may be true as regards the liability of a private litigant, Rule 17 does not (and arguably could not) provide the clear and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit an order directed at the government, which is the issue in today’s case. See, e.g., United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 , 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (a)(1).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.