Nam Ba Nguyen v. Orange County Social Service Agency Children and Family

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 26, 2022
• Docket: 8:22-cv-01880
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-01880-DOC-PLA Document6 Filed 10/26/22 Pagelof3 Page ID#:19 2 JS-6 4 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT g CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 9 CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 i NAM BA NGUYEN, ) No. SA CV 22-1880-DOC (PLA) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 12 ) STATUS AND DISMISSING ACTION 3 Vv. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE) 14) AGENCY CHILDREN AND FAMILY, et ) al., ) Honorable David O. Carter 15 ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) 16

17 18 19 Nam Ba Nguyen (“Plaintiff’) imitiated this action on October 13, 2022, by filing a civil rights 20 | complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “Complaint” or “Compl.”) (Dkt. 1), along with a Request to Proceed 21 | Without Prepayment of Filing Fees (“IFP Request”). (Dkt. 2). On October 21, 2022, the District Judge 22 || previously assigned to this matter granted plaintiff's IFP Request because plaintiff demonstrated that he is 23 | not able to pay the filing fee. (Dkt. 4). Due to a clerical error in the initial assignment of this action, on October 24 || 21, 2022, the case was reassigned to this Court for all further proceedings. (Dkt. 5). 25 After IFP status had been granted, this Court reviewed the Complaint and now observes 26 | that although plaintiff purports to allege that Ais civil rights have been violated (Compl. at 2), the 27 || gravamen of the Complaint is that plaintiff's two children have been falsely imprisoned by the County 28

Case 8:22-cv-01880-DOC-PLA Document6 Filed 10/26/22 Page2of3 Page ID #:20

1 | agency for fourteen years (since 2009 when they were then aged 8 and 5), and that one of his sons was 2 || “force[d] to take many mental health medication[s].” (Compl. at 5, 6).' Plaintiffs requested relief is that his 3] two children (currently approximately ages 22 and 19) be compensated in the amount of$3,000,000 for their 4 || fourteen years of false imprisonment. (/d. at 7). Accordingly, it appears to the Court that plaintiff is bringing 5 | this action on behalf of his children, and is attempting to represent his children in the process. 6 Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, does not have standing to raise the claims of other persons whose rights 7 may have been violated. United States v. Mitchell, 915 F.2d 521, 526 n.8 (9th Cir. 1990). While a non- 8 | attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others. 91 CE. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Central District Local Rule 10 | 83-2.2.1 also provides that “[a]ny person representing himself... in a case without an attorney must appear pro 11 | se for such purpose. That representation may not be delegated to any other person -- even a spouse, relative, or 12 | co-party in the case. A non-attorney guardian for a minor or incompetent person must be represented by 13 | counsel.” C.D. Local Rule 82-2.2.1. There is no evidence presented that plaintiff has been appointed as a 14] guardian for either of his children (both of whom are longer minors); neither does plaintiff allege that he has 15 | suffered the harm alleged in this action. 16 A federal court has “an ‘independent obligation’ to assess whether it has jurisdiction” before 17 | proceeding to the merits of a case. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2292 (2021)(quoting 18 | Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)); see also Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007) 19 | (“Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits.”). The Court may 20 | dismiss a case summarily if the pleading presents an obvious jurisdictional issue. See, e.g., Scholastic Ent. Inc. 21 | vy. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985, 989 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court may dismiss sua sponte and without 22 | notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without violating due process). 23 It is plaintiff's burden as the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction to establish an Article III 24 | injury on the face of the pleading. To establish the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of Article III 25 | standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must have: (1) suffered “an injury in fact,” (2) “that is fairly traceable 26 | to the challenged conduct” of the defendant, and he or she must seek (3) “a remedy that is likely to redress 27 —<—<$— 28 | ‘For ease of reference, the Court refers to the ECF-generated page numbers of the Complaint.

Case 8:22-cv-01880-DOC-PLA Document6 Filed 10/26/22 Page3of3 Page ID#:21

1 | that injury” by a favorable court decision. A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if a plaintiff fails 2 to establish Article IIT standing. In this case, plaintiff fails to show that he personally suffered a particularized 3 | or concrete “injury in fact,” that is “fairly traceable” to the challenged actions of the County as alleged in the 41 Complaint. 5 Because plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that he has Article III standing to raise 6 | any of the claims alleged in this action, and because he is proceeding pro se in this action and does not have 7 | standing to raise any federal claims on behalf of his children, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 8 | See LR. by and through Rizzi v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist., 2021 WL 4553056, at *2-3 9} (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021). Plaintiffs IFP status is hereby REVOKED and the October 21, 2022, Order 10 | granting plaintiff leave to proceed IFP (Dkt. 4) is VACATED. 1] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 12 | lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Aland O 20 | DATED: October 26, 2022 ao HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28