Chelsea Jewel Jackson v. Detroit Public Schools Community District, et. al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-14190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHELSEA JEWEL JACKSON, Case No: 25-14190 Plaintiff, Hon. F. Kay Behm U.S. District Judge v.

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT, et. al.,

Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR AMENDED PLEADING

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) requires litigants to protect the identity of minors by, at minimum, using only the minor in question’s initials when filing their pleadings. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 30, 2025, listing the name of a minor child in her complaint.1 The court lacks the ability to redact only portions of Plaintiff’s complaint or to strike only portions of it. The court therefore STRIKES

1 The minor’s name is properly redacted and initialed in most instances; in several instances, however, it is not. Although Plaintiff apparently made a good faith effort to redact all instances of the minor’s name, the redaction is not complete and the court must strike the entire complaint. the entire pleading (ECF No. 1) for failure to comply with Rule 5.2(a)(3),

and Plaintiff shall have until January 22, 2026, to file an amended complaint which complies with Rule 5.2(a)(3) (for example, by using only initials and/or redacting uses of the minors’ names). Failure to

submit an amended pleading complying with Rule 5.2(a)(3) by that date will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Johnson v. Fennville, No. 1:21-cv-202, 2021 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 232181, 2021 WL 5579204, at *1-2 (W.D. Mich. May 4, 2021) (placing complaint under seal and ordering plaintiffs to file a redacted complaint complying with Rule 5.2(a)(3)). Any subsequent pleadings

filed by Plaintiff which fail to comply with this notice will be stricken by the court without further order of the court. Because the current pleading is stricken and there is thus no

operative pleading, the motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4) that relies on that pleading is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion for a temporary restraining order after

filing an amended complaint. A few other notes may help with this case’s progress. First, 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). Plaintiff may consider waiting to press their motion

for a TRO until Defendant is properly served with the summons and complaint, unless they make the required showing that ex parte relief is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). Second,

Plaintiff should take caution in submitting her amended complaint because her first complaint brings claims on behalf of her minor son. However, “[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). If Plaintiff nonetheless attempts to bring claims on behalf of her minor child despite this warning, those claims may be dismissed. As a result, she must carefully differentiate between claims brought on behalf of the

minor and those which belong to her. The failure to make that distinction clear does not comply with Rule 8’s command that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and may result in dismissal of any claim not clearly brought on her own behalf for failure to comply with Rule 8 and with the warning contained in this order.

Lacking an operative complaint, the court does not yet rule on the pending application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs (ECF No. 2).

SO ORDERED. Date: January 5, 2026 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge