Slaughter v. Dauphin County Adult Probation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL L. SLAUGHTER
Plaintiff,
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY ADULT
PROBATION, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-cv-01170
(Judge Wilson)
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
MEMORANDUM
Pro se Plaintiff Daniel L. Slaughter has filed a request asking the Court for
assistance of counsel. (Doc. 57). Because Plaintiff indicates in that request that he
is “mentally disabled” due to a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and therefore
incompetent to manage this action due to his mental health impairments, we must
satisfy our duty of inquiry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
Accordingly, as set forth herein, we will direct Plaintiff to submit additional
documentation for in camera review.
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on July 16, 2024, naming the Dauphin County Adult Probation Office and
Probation Officer Kamala Banning as defendants. (Doc. 1). He also filed a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The matter was referred to Chief
Case 1:24-cv-01170-JPW-LAL Document 75 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 6

2
Magistrate Judge Bloom on October 28, 2024. On October 29, 2024, Judge Bloom
issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc.
13), and a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended dismissal of all
claims with the exception of a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant
Banning. (Doc. 14). Additionally, Judge Bloom recommended that Plaintiff’s first
Motion to Appoint Counsel be denied. The Report and Recommendation was
adopted on December 19, 2024, by the Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson and the
matter referred was back to Judge Bloom for further pretrial management. (Doc.
21).
Defendant Banning filed an Answer on February 20, 2025, (Doc. 27), and
Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Appoint Counsel on March 18, 2025. (Doc. 29).
The Motion was denied without prejudice on March 21, 2025. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff
filed a request for leave to file an Amended Complaint on May 1, 2025, (Doc. 41),
and a third request for counsel on May 5, 2025. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff was granted
leave to file an Amended Complaint and his request for counsel was denied
without prejudice by Order dated May 16, 2025. (Doc. 47). The Amended
Complaint was filed on June 17, 2025. (Doc. 50). A Motion to Dismiss, which is
currently ripe and pending, was filed by the Defendant on July 1, 2025.1 (Doc. 53).
1 Plaintiff has also filed numerous requests for subpoenas, including subpoenas to
East End Behavior Center (Doc. 33), Judge William T. Tully (Doc. 34), Perform
Case 1:24-cv-01170-JPW-LAL Document 75 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff filed his fourth Motion to Appoint Counsel on August 1, 2025.
(Doc. 57). In that Motion and supporting brief, Plaintiff reiterated that he has been
deemed mentally disabled after suffering a TBI. (See Doc. 58). He asserts that he
has numerous cognitive impairments and was hospitalized five times in relation to
“psychological disturbance[s]” while he was on probation and under the
supervision of Defendant Banning. (Id.). On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for the appointment of a mental health legal advisor. (Doc. 60). A notice of
address change filed on October 29, 2025, was sent in an envelope with a return
address of a behavioral hospital. This fact, combined with Plaintiff’s allegations in
his previous filings and his request for a mental health advisor, raises concerns
regarding competency.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 17(c)(2) provides that “[a] minor or an incompetent person who does
not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian
ad litem. The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate
order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). While Rule 17(c)(2) imposes a mandatory
obligation upon the courts, there is “no suggestion which factors should trigger the
Care Insurance Company (Doc. 35), and Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institution (Doc
42), and a Motion to Compel. (Doc. 74).
Case 1:24-cv-01170-JPW-LAL Document 75 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 6

4
court’s duty of inquiry as to whether the individual at issue is competent.” Powell
v. Symons, 680 F.3d 301, 303 (3d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, “responsibility for Rule
17 appears generally to be left to the discretion of the district courts.” Id.
The Third Circuit has provided some guidance, instructing that “a district
court need not inquire sua sponte into a pro se plaintiff’s mental competence based
upon a litigant’s bizarre behavior alone, even if such behavior may suggest mental
incapacity.” Id. at 307. Rather, the duty of inquiry involves a determination of
whether there is “verifiable evidence of incompetence.” Id. For instance, the Third
Circuit clarified that a district court would abuse its discretion if it failed to
consider whether Rule 17(c) applied “[i]f a court were presented with evidence
from an appropriate court of record or a relevant public agency indicating that the
party had been adjudicated incompetent, or if the court received 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.” Id. (quoting Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Center, 323 F.3d
196, 201 (2d Cir. 2003)). A district court “must satisfy its duty of inquiry before it
proceeds to determine if Rule 17 applies.” Id.
Case 1:24-cv-01170-JPW-LAL Document 75 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 6

5
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has previously alleged that he is “legally, mentally disabled” and
“has been diagnosed with PTSD, Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type and
Psychosis.” (Doc. 43). He states that he has neither “the mental capacity” nor “the
ability to effectively present his own case.” (Id.). Furthermore, he has sent mail to
the Court with a return address of a behavioral hospital and has requested the Court
to provide him with a mental health advisor. Based upon these claims, our duty of
inquiry is triggered. However, neither Plaintiff’s “Motion to Request Assistance of
Counsel” nor the “Declaration in Support” or his Motion for the appointment of a
mental health advisor, provide “verifiable evidence of incompetence.” See Powell,
680 F.3d at 307.
Accordingly, we will direct Plaintiff to submit to the Court for in camera
review (1) any documentation from a public agency or court of record that he has
been adjudicated incompetent, or (2) documentation from a medical provider that
the type of mental illness for which he is being treated renders him legally
incompetent. Id.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based upon the above, before proceeding further in this smatter, we must
satisfy our duty of inquiry. Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to submit to the Court
Case 1:24-cv-01170-JPW-LAL Document 75 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 6

6
for in camera review the specific type of documentation described supra. An order
will follow which will include instructions for Plaintiff as to the submission of
documents for in camera review.
Date: November 17, 2025 	/s/ Leo A. Latella
Leo A. Latella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01170-JPW-LAL Document 75 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 6