Levi Garner v. Sedro-Woolley School District No. 101

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 LEVI GARNER, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-01358-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. RESTRAINING ORDER 10 SEDRO-WOOLLEY SCHOOL 11 DISTRICT No. 101,

12 Defendant. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Levi Garner’s motion for a 15 temporary restraining order and request for a preliminary-injunction schedule. See 16 Dkt. No. 5. Garner asks the Court to enjoin Defendant Sedro-Woolley School 17 District No. 101 (“District”) from enforcing a 15-day suspension of “N.G.,” a minor. 18 The Court does not reach the merits of the motion because a threshold 19 problem precludes review. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a party may plead their 20 “own case[ ]” or be represented “by counsel,” but they cannot bring a lawsuit on 21 another person’s behalf. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 22 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a non-lawyer “has no authority to appear as an 23 attorney for others than himself”). In the caption of his complaint, Garner names 1 himself “individually” as a plaintiff in this case, but also as “next friend for N.G.,” 2 his son. Dkt. No. 1-1. Later in the complaint, he identifies N.G. as a plaintiff. But “a

3 parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without 4 retaining a lawyer.” Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1179 5 (9th Cir. 2024); see Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) 6 (even a parent appointed as guardian ad litem to their children may not sue without 7 retaining a lawyer). 8 The Ninth Circuit recently acknowledged that the rule barring parents from

9 representing their minor children is rigid and brings up questions about a child’s 10 access to justice, but it remains the law in this circuit. Grizzell, 110 F.4th at 1179. 11 This is because, it “goes without saying[,] that it is not in the interests of minors or 12 incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys.” Johns, 114 F.3d at 876. 13 The TRO claims brought by Garner are entirely on behalf of N.G. None of the 14 claims in the TRO are brought in his own name. Accordingly, Garner’s motion, Dkt. 15 No. 5, is DENIED without prejudice.

16 17 Dated this 27th day of April, 2026. 18 a Jamal N. Whitehead 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23