Monique Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 4, 2024
• Docket: 8:24-cv-02490
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONIQUE DIOSDADO, Case No. 8:24-cv-02490-FLA (KESx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION 15 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 16 Defendant. 17

18 19 On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff Monique Diosdado (“Plaintiff” or 20 “Diosdado”) initiated this action by filing a series of documents with the court, which 21 Plaintiff identifies as: 22 1. Motion to Expedite 23 2. Main Appeal Motion 24 3. Motion to Add Claims of Systemic Neglect, Retaliation, Deliberate 25 Indifference, and Discrimination 26 4. Motion to Redact Minor’s Full Name from All Public Filings 27 5. Exhibits 28 Dkt. 1 at 1. I There are multiple issues with Plaintiff's filings. First, Plaintiff's case-initiating 2 | documents do not comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 | Procedure (including Rules 3, 7(a)(1), 8, and 10) or the Local Rules (including Local 4 | Rules 6-1, 7-3, 7-5, 7-19, 7-20, 8-1, 11-3, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8). These documents are 5 | deficient and insufficient to bring a civil action in federal court. 6 Second, Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of S.D., a minor, and to 7 || represent S.D. in pro se. See Dkt. 7 at 4-7. It is well settled that a non-attorney 8 | “parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining 9 | alawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 10 | Grizzell v. San Elijo Elem. Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2024) (recognizing 11 | courts in the Ninth Circuit are “bound by Johns, which holds that a parent may not 12 | proceed pro se on her children’s behalf”). 13 Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing, 14 | on or before January 10, 2025, why the action should not be dismissed without 15 | prejudice for: (1) failure to file a complaint that complies with the requirements of the 16 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules; and (2) Plaintiffs inability to 17 | represent S.D. in this action in pro se. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a 18 || response to the OSC timely may result in the dismissal of the action without further 19 | notice from the court. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 | Dated: December 4, 2024 A FERNANDO AENLLE*ROCHA United States District Judge 25 26 27 28