Doe v. Chowchilla Elementary School District

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01094
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01094-KES-EPG 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE v. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 BECAUSE MINOR PLAINTIFF LACKS CHOWCHILLA EMELENTARY COUNSEL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 15

Defendant. 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY 17 (30) DAYS 18 On September 16, 2024, Minor Plaintiff Jane Doe filed this civil action. (ECF No. 1). 19 On October 7, 2024, the Court appointed Joanna Abercrombie as Jane Doe’s guardian ad litem. 20 (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that she was discriminated by her former school 21 district on the basis of her race. 22 After Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from representing her, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 23 retain new counsel because Plaintiff is unable to proceed pro se as a minor. Given that Plaintiff 24 has not had new counsel appear, and Plaintiff may not proceed in this case without representation, 25 the undersigned will recommend dismissing this case without prejudice. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff, a minor represented by guardian ad litem Joanna 3 Abercrombie, filed a complaint naming as Defendant Chowchilla Elementary School District. 4 (ECF No. 1). The Complaint contains claims for (1) Discrimination based on Race in violation of 5 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) Discrimination Based on Race Federal Equal Opportunity Act in violation of 20 U.S.C. §1703 et seq; (3) Discrimination Based on Race in 6 violation of California Educ. Code §220; (4) Equal Protection of the Law Fourteenth Amendment 7 in violation of 20 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.; (5) Equal Rights and Opportunities in the Educational 8 Institutions of the State in California Educ. Code §200 et seq.; (6) Failure to Provide a Safe Place 9 to Learn Safe Place to Learn Act in violation of Cal. Educ. Code §234; (7) Failure to Combat 10 Discrimination and Hate Violence California Education Code in violation of Cal. Educ. Code § 11 201. (Id.). 12 On December 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s then-counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.” 13 (ECF No. 11). On February 21, 2025, the Court held a telephonic hearing on the motion with 14 Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem present. (ECF No. 18). On February 24, 2024, the Court granted 15 Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, giving Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem until May 16, 2025, 16 to retain new counsel. (ECF No. 19 at 4). The Court’s order stated: 17 Because this case involves a minor child proceeding through guardian ad litem Joanna Abercrombie, it is important to note that, should counsel be permitted to 18 withdraw for Plaintiff, Abercrombie would be a non-attorney guardian ad litem who is not represented by counsel. 19 The Ninth Circuit has held “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf 20 of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 21 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). The Ninth Circuit has also held that in such instances where the guardian ad litem does not have counsel, the case should be dismissed 22 without prejudice. (Id.). 23 (ECF No. 19, at p. 2-3). 24 On May 16, 2025, Attorney Jeanliou G.T. Maschhoff filed a request for extension of time 25 to file an appearance of counsel, stating that she had been retained as counsel by Plaintiff’s father, but was not yet able to enter a notice of appearance because she was awaiting her retainer fee. 26 (ECF No. 27). On May 23, 2025, Attorney Maschhoff filed a second request for extension 27 because she has still not received her retainer fee. (ECF No. 29). The Court granted her an 28 1 extension until June 3, 2025, to formally enter a notice of appearance. (ECF No. 30). On June 6, 2 2025, Attorney Maschhoff filed a “Declination of Representation” stating that because she never 3 received her retainer fee, she was unable to enter her appearance in this case. (ECF No 31). 4 Almost three weeks have passed since Attorney Maschhoff’s Declination and Plaintiff has 5 not had any other counsel enter an appearance in this case, or otherwise taken any action on this case. 6 In the meantime, Defendant Chowchilla Elementary School District has filed a motion to 7 dismiss (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 23). 8 However, Plaintiff has not filed any response to these motions. 9 II. ANALYSIS 10 Plaintiff is a minor. In Johns v. County of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit held that “‘a non- 11 attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her 12 child.’” 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll., 937 F.2d 876, 882- 13 83 (3d Cir. 1991)). This rule remains the law of the Circuit. Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary 14 School 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024); cert. denied sub nom. Grizzell v. San Elijo 15 Elementary (U.S., May 19, 2025, No. 24-812) 2025 WL 1426678 (“Our panel, however, is bound 16 by Johns, which holds that a parent may not proceed pro se on her children’s behalf.”). See also 17 Gabriel Charles Reed v. Eugene School District 4j, et al., No. 24-789, 2025 WL 1779779, at *1 18 (9th Cir. June 27, 2025) (“The district court properly dismissed Reed's action because ‘a parent or 19 guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.’”). 20 Thus, under settled Ninth Circuit law, this case should be dismissed without prejudice 21 because Plaintiff is a minor and lacks legal representation in this case. 22 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 23 Because a minor represented by a guardian ad litem cannot proceed without counsel, and Plaintiff is a minor who has been unable to retain counsel since her previous counsel withdrew 24 from the case on February 24, 2025, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed without 25 prejudice. 26 IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 27 1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, because Plaintiff is a minor and is not 28 1 represented by a lawyer; 2 2. All pending motions be deemed no longer pending; and 3 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings g and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages, 9 including exhibits.

0 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

13 | ITIS ORDERED. Dated: _ June 30, 2025 [Jee hey 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28