Pacheco v. Gomes

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00654
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELISSA PACHECO, Case No. 1:25-CV-00654 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 13 v. (Doc. 3) 14 SELMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Melissa Pacheco, who is proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit presumably on behalf of 18 her son1, A.P., against Selma Unified School District and various individuals associated with the 19 School District. (Doc. 1.) The lawsuit alleges that A.P. has been diagnosed with juvenile 20 dermatomyositis; that this causes fatigue, brain fog, and other symptoms; and that as a result he 21 “is on a 504 Plan,”(id. at 4–6), which the Court construes to mean that he is subject to a plan set 22 up under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The Complaint further alleges, 23 among other things, that A.P.’s Section 504 rights have been violated because he has “been 24 having unnoticed mental issues” related to his diagnosis; that he has not been receiving needed 25 support; and that his workload has not been reduced to “equal his frequent tardies and absences” 26 thereby preventing him from graduating. (Id. at 5.) Ms. Pacheco has separately moved for a 27

28 1 It is not clear whether Ms. Pacheco’s son is a minor, but for purposes of discussion, the Court will presume that he 1 || temporary restraining order (TRO) that would require Defendants to permit A.P. to participate in 2 | the June 5, 2025, graduation at Selma High School. (Doc. 3; see also Doc. 1 at 7.)° 3 Ms. Pacheco’s TRO request will be denied because it appears that she lacks standing to 4 | pursue her claims. A federal court has an independent obligation to assess whether it has 5 | jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a case. See Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 6 | (2007) (“Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the 7 | merits.”). Federal law allows parties to “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by 8 || counsel.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this rule to 9 | mean that “a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf,” but “that privilege is 10 | personal to [the pro se party],” who “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others.” See 11 | CE. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Ninth 12 | Circuit has held that a parent appointed guardian ad litem of their minor child cannot bring a pro 13 | se lawsuit on the child’s behalf. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997); 14 | see also Hu v. Janssen Pharms., Inc., No. 21-CV-05990-HSG, 2024 WL 4178666, at *2 (N.D. 15 Cal. Sept. 11, 2024). 16 Because Ms. Pacheco is proceeding pro se and appears to bring a claim only on behalf of 17 | her son, she lacks standing to proceed in this matter. Therefore, her request for a TRO will be 18 | DENIED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 3, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28); Ms. Pacheco has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that remains pending. (Doc. 2.)