CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor E.R.N. v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor E.R.N. v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 22, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-00108·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor Case No. 1:26-cv-00108-SKO

E.R.N., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 12 FORTY-FIVE DAYS LEAVE TO SEEK Plaintiff, LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN v. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM ON 14 BEHALF OF MINOR PLAINTIFF 15 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE 16

17 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 18 19 Christine Navarro, on behalf of minor Plaintiff E.R.N., filed an amended complaint on 20 January 21, 2026, challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying an 21 application for disability benefits. (Doc. 4). 22 In a prior order, the Court indicated that Christine Navarro could represent a minor child as 23 a general guardian if she were the parent of that minor child. See Navarro v. Bisignano, No. 1:26- 24 CV-00108-SKO (SS), 2026 WL 95446 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026). However, while Rule 17(c) 25 allows for a “general guardian” to act in a representative capacity asserting claims on behalf of a 26 minor child, upon further review of the case law, the Court finds that Christine Navarro cannot 27 asset representative claims on behalf of a minor and proceed pro se, meaning without legal 28 1 representation by a licensed attorney. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that representatives in the form of “a general 3 guardian,” “a committee,” “a conservator,” or “a like fiduciary,” “may sue or defend on behalf of 4 a minor.” However, it is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that, while a “general guardian” is entitled 5 to sue in a representative capacity, “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor 6 child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); 7 see also id. at 876−77 (“[I]t is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented 8 by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained 9 legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.” (quoting Osei-Afrivie v. Medical College, 10 937 F.2d 876, 882−83 (3d Cir. 1991)); Garcia v. Colvin, No. 1:13-CV-00477-SMS, 2013 WL 11 1500232, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (“Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se in this appeal of the 12 Commissioner’s denial of SSI benefits to [her daughter], but must retain an attorney to represent 13 her daughter.”); Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School, 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024) 14 (noting other circuits have “acknowledged concerns” about the counsel mandate with regard to a 15 pro se parent proceeding on behalf of a child in federal court, but finding they are “bound by Johns, 16 which holds that a parent may not proceed pro se on her children's behalf”), cert denied sub nom. 17 No. 24-812, 2025 WL 1426678 (May 19, 2025); Belle v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 12433360, at *1 (D. 18 Nev. Jan. 18, 2019) (noting plaintiff cannot challenge denial of social security benefits on behalf 19 of her minor child, and giving plaintiff a deadline to advise the court if she would retain counsel); 20 Smith for S.L.I. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-CV-00791-HBK, 2025 WL 1993676 (E.D. Cal. 21 July 17, 2025) (same). 22 The choice to appear pro se, without legal representation, is not a true choice for minors 23 who cannot determine their own legal actions. Id. And because there is thus no individual choice 24 to proceed pro se for courts to respect, and the sole policy at stake concerns the exclusion of non- 25 licensed persons to appear as attorneys on behalf of others. Johns, 114 F.3d at 876. Where minors 26 have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may 27 be fully protected. Id. In sum, a parent or guardian cannot bring an action in a representative 28 capacity on behalf of a minor child under Rule 17(c) unless that child’s claims are brought with 1 legal representation by an attorney. “And if a[n attorney] is not secured to bring suit on a minor’s 2 behalf, the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice so the minor may bring the action upon 3 reaching the age of majority.” Duarte v. Figueroa, No. C 05-1049 JF(PR), 2006 WL 708994, at 4 *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006). Because no attorney has appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, Christine 5 Navarro may not bring such claims in a representative capacity on behalf of E.R.N. Christine 6 Navarro must, therefore, seek legal representation if she intends to prosecute this action. 7 Additionally, the Court will direct Christine Navarro to consider the privacy protections for 8 court filings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) and Local Rule 140. Pursuant to 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3), “[u]nless the court orders otherwise,” a filing may 10 include only a minor’s initials. Moreover, under Local Rule 140(a)(i), unless the Court orders 11 otherwise, “when filing documents, counsel and the Court shall omit or, where reference is 12 necessary, partially redact [minor’s names] from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits.” Further, 13 the Court will not “as a matter of course seal on its own motion documents containing personal data 14 identifiers, or redact documents, whether filed electronically or on paper.” L.R. 140(e). This Order 15 will refer to the minor referenced in the instant motion by their initials “E.R.N.” 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 1. Christine Navarro is GRANTED forty-five (45) days leave to seek legal 18 representation in this action. 19 2. In the event counsel makes an appearance within forty-five (45) days of the service 20 of this order, such counsel will be advised to consult Local Rule 202(a). 21 3. In the event that no counsel makes an appearance within forty-five (45) days of the 22 service of this order, the Court will issue an order to show cause why this case should 23 not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of legal representation of a minor 24 plaintiff. 25 4. Christine Navarro is further DIRECTED to consult Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 5.2 and Local Rule 140. 27 // 28 // 1 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff at their last known 2 address as reflected on the docket. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: January 22, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor Case No. 1:26-cv-00108-SKO

E.R.N., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 12 FORTY-FIVE DAYS LEAVE TO SEEK Plaintiff, LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN v. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM ON 14 BEHALF OF MINOR PLAINTIFF 15 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE 16

17 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 18 19 Christine Navarro, on behalf of minor Plaintiff E.R.N., filed an amended complaint on 20 January 21, 2026, challenging a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying an 21 application for disability benefits. (Doc. 4). 22 In a prior order, the Court indicated that Christine Navarro could represent a minor child as 23 a general guardian if she were the parent of that minor child. See Navarro v. Bisignano, No. 1:26- 24 CV-00108-SKO (SS), 2026 WL 95446 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026). However, while Rule 17(c) 25 allows for a “general guardian” to act in a representative capacity asserting claims on behalf of a 26 minor child, upon further review of the case law, the Court finds that Christine Navarro cannot 27 asset representative claims on behalf of a minor and proceed pro se, meaning without legal 28 1 representation by a licensed attorney. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides that representatives in the form of “a general 3 guardian,” “a committee,” “a conservator,” or “a like fiduciary,” “may sue or defend on behalf of 4 a minor.” However, it is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that, while a “general guardian” is entitled 5 to sue in a representative capacity, “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor 6 child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); 7 see also id. at 876−77 (“[I]t is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented 8 by non-attorneys. Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained 9 legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.” (quoting Osei-Afrivie v. Medical College, 10 937 F.2d 876, 882−83 (3d Cir. 1991)); Garcia v. Colvin, No. 1:13-CV-00477-SMS, 2013 WL 11 1500232, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (“Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se in this appeal of the 12 Commissioner’s denial of SSI benefits to [her daughter], but must retain an attorney to represent 13 her daughter.”); Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School, 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024) 14 (noting other circuits have “acknowledged concerns” about the counsel mandate with regard to a 15 pro se parent proceeding on behalf of a child in federal court, but finding they are “bound by Johns, 16 which holds that a parent may not proceed pro se on her children's behalf”), cert denied sub nom. 17 No. 24-812, 2025 WL 1426678 (May 19, 2025); Belle v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 12433360, at *1 (D. 18 Nev. Jan. 18, 2019) (noting plaintiff cannot challenge denial of social security benefits on behalf 19 of her minor child, and giving plaintiff a deadline to advise the court if she would retain counsel); 20 Smith for S.L.I. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-CV-00791-HBK, 2025 WL 1993676 (E.D. Cal. 21 July 17, 2025) (same). 22 The choice to appear pro se, without legal representation, is not a true choice for minors 23 who cannot determine their own legal actions. Id. And because there is thus no individual choice 24 to proceed pro se for courts to respect, and the sole policy at stake concerns the exclusion of non- 25 licensed persons to appear as attorneys on behalf of others. Johns, 114 F.3d at 876. Where minors 26 have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may 27 be fully protected. Id. In sum, a parent or guardian cannot bring an action in a representative 28 capacity on behalf of a minor child under Rule 17(c) unless that child’s claims are brought with 1 legal representation by an attorney. “And if a[n attorney] is not secured to bring suit on a minor’s 2 behalf, the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice so the minor may bring the action upon 3 reaching the age of majority.” Duarte v. Figueroa, No. C 05-1049 JF(PR), 2006 WL 708994, at 4 *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006). Because no attorney has appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, Christine 5 Navarro may not bring such claims in a representative capacity on behalf of E.R.N. Christine 6 Navarro must, therefore, seek legal representation if she intends to prosecute this action. 7 Additionally, the Court will direct Christine Navarro to consider the privacy protections for 8 court filings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) and Local Rule 140. Pursuant to 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3), “[u]nless the court orders otherwise,” a filing may 10 include only a minor’s initials. Moreover, under Local Rule 140(a)(i), unless the Court orders 11 otherwise, “when filing documents, counsel and the Court shall omit or, where reference is 12 necessary, partially redact [minor’s names] from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits.” Further, 13 the Court will not “as a matter of course seal on its own motion documents containing personal data 14 identifiers, or redact documents, whether filed electronically or on paper.” L.R. 140(e). This Order 15 will refer to the minor referenced in the instant motion by their initials “E.R.N.” 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 1. Christine Navarro is GRANTED forty-five (45) days leave to seek legal 18 representation in this action. 19 2. In the event counsel makes an appearance within forty-five (45) days of the service 20 of this order, such counsel will be advised to consult Local Rule 202(a). 21 3. In the event that no counsel makes an appearance within forty-five (45) days of the 22 service of this order, the Court will issue an order to show cause why this case should 23 not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of legal representation of a minor 24 plaintiff. 25 4. Christine Navarro is further DIRECTED to consult Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 5.2 and Local Rule 140. 27 // 28 // 1 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff at their last known 2 address as reflected on the docket. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: January 22, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor E.R.N. v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor E.R.N. v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security (CHRISTINE NAVARRO, on behalf of minor E.R.N. v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related