Chelsea Jewel Jackson, as next friend of minor B.D. v. Detroit Public Schools Community District, et. al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-14190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHELSEA JEWEL JACKSON, as next friend of minor B.D., Case No: 25-14190 Plaintiff, Hon. F. Kay Behm U.S. District Judge v.

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT, et. al.,

Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 7) AND DENYING MOTIONS TO PROCEED PRO SE ON MINOR’S BEHALF (ECF No. 8) AND FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 9)

I. Order Striking Complaint for Failure to Comply The amended complaint (ECF No. 7) does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) because it again lists a minor child’s name in unredacted form. ECF No. 7, PageID.23. Per the court’s order at ECF No. 6, PageID.16, warning Plaintiff what would happen if she filed an amended pleading that again failed to comply with that Rule, this amended pleading (ECF No. 7) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff shall have one final opportunity to file her complaint with complete redactions as to any minor child’s name within 21 days of entry of this order; if

Plaintiff again files a pleading that does not comply with Rule 5.2(a)(3), this case will be dismissed in its entirety for failure to comply under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). If Plaintiff does not file a new

complaint in that time, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. II. Order Giving 21 Days to Find Representation for B.D.’s

Claims (ECF No. 8) Jackson again attempts to bring claims on behalf of her minor child B.D. ECF Nos. 7, 8. But as she was previously warned (ECF No.

6), “[p]arents cannot appear pro se on behalf of their minor children because a minor’s personal cause of action is [their] own and does not belong to [their] parent or representative.” Cavanaugh v. Cardinal

Local Sch. Dist., 409 F.3d 753, 755 (6th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007); see Azazhusen Khatri Est. v. Dearborn Pub. Sch., No.

23-cv-12930, 2025 LX 360080, 2025 WL 2408791, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025) (recently stating the same). Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as “next friend” (ECF No. 8, PageID.31) is properly construed as an attempt to proceed pro se on her minor child’s behalf and improperly

assert claims on behalf of her child. Her motion so construed is without merit for the reasons stated above, and is DENIED. She may proceed as next friend to B.D. if a lawyer appears on her behalf; she may not

assert B.D.’s claims absent a lawyer. If Plaintiff files a second amended complaint again attempting to bring claims on B.D.’s behalf but no lawyer appears, any claim brought on B.D.’s behalf without a lawyer

will be dismissed without prejudice and without a third warning. Because Plaintiff has 21 days to file a second amended complaint, she also has 21 days to find a lawyer to represent B.D.’s claims, if any are

asserted. If Plaintiff again attempts to bring claims both on her own behalf and on behalf of B.D., she must clearly label which Counts are brought on her own behalf and which are brought on B.D.’s behalf; it is

not Defendant’s nor the court’s role to guess at the nature of the claims asserted. Failure to specify between a claim brought on B.D.’s behalf and a claim brought on behalf of herself may result in dismissal of the

claim for failure to comply with the court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b); ECF No. 6 (giving the same warning). III. Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

(ECF No. 9) Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9) is DENIED because no Defendant has been served or appeared and she

has not satisfied the requirements to show that ex parte relief is appropriate. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the “court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice

to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

Id. (emphasis added). These “stringent restrictions . . . on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). An ex parte temporary restraining order is “only appropriate where the applicant would face irreparable harm so immediate that it would be improper to

wait until after a preliminary injunction hearing to enjoin the non- movant’s conduct.” Erad v. Johnson, 905 F. Supp.2d 782, 791 (E.D. Mich. 2012).

The Sixth Circuit has explained that “[t]he normal circumstance for which the district court would be justified in proceeding ex parte is where notice to the adverse party is impossible, as in the cases where

the adverse party is unknown or is unable to be found.” Depinet, 11 F.3d at 650. It also described “another limited circumstance for which the district court may proceed ex parte: where notice to the defendant

would render fruitless further prosecution of the action.” Id. Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 65(b)(1), which requires a party to clearly show irreparable and immediate injury and

certify why notice should not be required. She does not claim or provide any evidence that would tend to show that the Defendant is “unable to be found” or that notice would render the action “fruitless.”

The court will not consider a third motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order. See ECF No. 4 (prior ex parte motion); ECF No. 6 (warning Plaintiff that ex parte relief would not be available unless she met her burden under Rule 65(b)); ECF No. 9 (second motion

for ex parte restraining order). SO ORDERED. Date: January 26, 2026 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge