Reed v. Eugene School District 4j

Ninth Circuit

Reed v. Eugene School District 4j

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 2025

Docket24-789

StatusUnpublished

This text of Reed v. Eugene School District 4j (Reed v. Eugene School District 4j) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reed v. Eugene School District 4j, (9th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL CHARLES REED, as Next of No. 24-789 Friend to M.R., D.C. No. 6:24-cv-00078-AA Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v.

EUGENE SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J; PAULA MCCOWN; JONATHAN ANDREW DEY, Jr.; MARRIOTT BOURSIQUOT; JOHN BOITA; KAYLA DUNCAN; JOE HADLEY; JENNIFER ANNETT; KATHRYN JOHNSON; SARA CAMPBELL; MELISSA IBARRA; BERNADETTE ADERIRAN; SETH PFAEFFLIN; MIKE INGMAN; ERIKA WOLF; COURTNEY LEONARD; ABBY NEHLS- LOWE; REBECCA ANSEN; KEITH USSERY; ELIZA DRUMMOND; KAREN APGAR; TOM MALONEY; LISA FJORDBECK; DELLA THOMAS; MICHELLE DUNN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Gabriel Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

sua sponte his action brought on behalf of his minor child alleging various federal

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo questions of standing. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th

Cir. 1997). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reed’s action because “a parent or

guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a

lawyer.” Id. at 877; see also Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177,

1179 (9th Cir. 2024) (rejecting statutory, constitutional, and policy challenges to

the rule prohibiting parents from representing their children pro se).

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-789

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI