Kent T. Hutke Fields v. Department of Children and Family Services

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00396-FLA-JPR Document 5 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:149

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE NATCHEZ NATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-00396-FLA (JPR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. COMPLAINT WITHOUT 14 PREJUDICE DEP’T OF CHILDREN & FAMILY 15 SERVS., et al.,

16 Defendants. 17

18 19 20 RULING 21 On January 18, 2022, Kent T. Hutke Fields, “Principal Chief of the Natchez 22 Tribe,” filed pro se a lawsuit on behalf of “The Natchez Nation, a Band of the 23 Federally Recognized Muscogee (Creek) Nation.” Dkt. 1-1 (“Compl.”) at 1. He 24 purports to sue various entities and people under the Indian Child Welfare Act over 25 child-custody proceedings that have taken place in state juvenile court. See, e.g., id. at 26 8. He requests a preliminary injunction “preventing the Defendants from continuing 27 unmonitored visits between minors R.L. and S.L., with the abuser/adoptive mother.” 28 1 Case 2:22-cv-00396-FLA-JPR Document 5 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:150

1 Id. at 2. Numerous state-court filings and other documents are attached to the 2 Complaint. See Dkts. 1-1, 1-2. 3 Plaintiff does not appear to be an attorney: he has not included any state-bar 4 number with his contact information or otherwise indicated that he is a member of the 5 bar. The court’s search of the State Bar of California’s Attorney Search website also 6 shows no member of the bar with the name Kent Hutke or Kent Fields. Although the 7 Complaint was apparently prepared by an attorney (see id. (stating that “The Natchez 8 Nation … through its counsel, bring [sic] this action against the Defendants”)), the 9 signature line is for Fields (see id. at 14), and he put only his name and contact 10 information on the Complaint’s face page (id. at 1). As a non-attorney litigant acting 11 in pro se, he cannot represent an entity or any other person. See Simon v. Hartford 12 Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he privilege to represent oneself pro 13 se provided by [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to 14 other parties or entities.”); Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) 15 (per curiam) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent 16 anyone other than himself.”). The court’s local rules specifically prohibit a non- 17 lawyer from representing or acting on behalf of an entity. See Local Rule 83-2.2.2 18 (“No organization or entity of any other kind (including corporations, limited liability 19 partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts) may appear in any action or 20 proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this 21 Court[.]”). 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 26 27 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-00396-FLA-JPR Document5 Filed 02/01/22 Page3of3 Page ID #:151

1 Because Fields cannot represent the only Plaintiff in this action, the Natchez 2 || Nation, this lawsuit must be dismissed. The court summarily DISMISSES it without 3 | prejudice to its refiling by an attorney. Likewise, the request for a preliminary 4] injunction (Dkt. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: February 1, 2022 8 er 4 9 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 10 United States District Judge

11 | Presented by: 12 fe Prohluttr 13) JEANROSENBLUTH 14 | United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28