Kawamura v. Mammoth Hospital

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00789
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KEIKO KAWAMURA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00789-KES-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO SEAL COMPLAINT, IFP APPLICATION, AND 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO USE NAME OF MINOR PLAINTIFF 13 MAMMOTH HOSPITAL, et al., (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3). 14 Defendants. ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE 15 REDACTED COPIES OF COMPLAINT, IFP APPLICATION, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE 16 TO USE NAME OF MINOR PLAINTIFF 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3). 18 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO USE NAME OF MINOR PLAINTIFF 19 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 20 (ECF No. 3) 21 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MINOR 22 PLAINTIFF K.N.B. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF ATTORNEY 23 TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 24 25 Plaintiff Keiko Kawamura is proceeding pro se in this civil action filed against 26 Defendants Mammoth Hospital and Northern Inyo Healthcare District, with Plaintiff alleging 27 various causes of actions that generally stem from the medical care provided, or lack thereof, during the birth of her daughter, K.N.B., who is a minor. (See ECF No. 1). Plaintiff purports to 28 1 bring claims on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor child, K.N.B. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff 2 Kawamura has filed this case pro se, without an attorney. (ECF No. 1, at 19). 3 However, Plaintiff may not proceed on behalf of her minor child without having an 4 attorney. In Johns v. County of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit held that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” 114 F.3d 874, 877 5 (9th Cir. 1997). This rule remains the law of the Circuit. Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School 6 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2024); cert. denied sub nom. Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary, No. 7 24-812, 2025 WL 1426678 (U.S. May 19, 2025) (“Our panel, however, is bound by Johns, which 8 holds that a parent may not proceed pro se on her children’s behalf.”). 9 Thus, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of her 10 minor daughter should not be dismissed because K.N.B. is not represented by a lawyer. 11 Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) requires, “[u]nless the court orders 12 otherwise,” that only a minor’s initials be used in court filings. Additionally, Rule 5.2(h) provides 13 that “[a] person waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) as to the person’s own information by filing 14 it without redaction and not under seal.” Here, Plaintiff has filed various documents since 15 initiating this case, including the complaint, in forma pauperis (IFP) application, and motion for 16 leave to use name of minor Plaintiff, that all identify K.N.B. by her full name in violation of this 17 rule. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3). 18 Although Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to use the name of minor Plaintiff, the 19 Court cannot grant that motion because, as explained above, Plaintiff cannot represent her minor 20 daughter without a lawyer. Thus, Plaintiff cannot authorize K.N.B.’s full name contrary to the 21 standard redaction protections of Rule 5.2(a)(3). 22 Accordingly, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to seal these filings, set a deadline for 23 Plaintiff to file redacted copies, and deny the motion for leave to use name of minor Plaintiff without prejudice to the motion being refiled if counsel is obtained for K.N.B. 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 25 1. The Clerk of Court shall seal the complaint, IFP application, and motion for leave to use 26 name of minor Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3). 27 2. Plaintiff shall file redacted copies of the complaint, IFP application, and motion for leave 28 ] to use name of minor Plaintiff within 21 days from the entry of this order. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 2 3). 3 3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to use name of minor Plaintiff is denied without prejudice to 4 refiling of the motion should counsel appear on behalf of K.N.B. (ECF No. 3). 5 4. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order within 21 days of its entry showing 6 cause why the claims of minor K.N.B. should not be dismissed without prejudice because 7 Plaintiff has no authority to represent K.N.B. Alternatively, if counsel enters an g appearance on behalf of K.N.B. in this time period, the Court will vacate the order to

9 show cause. 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the claims brought on behalf of K.N.B., or all claims.

12 | ITISSO ORDERED. Dated July 11, 2025 [see ey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28