Rene Ortiz, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Rene Ortiz, et al., No. CV-26-00084-PHX-JZB

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Kristi Noem, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. (Doc. 3). On March 9, 16 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) with this Court.1 17 (Doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application 18 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), dismiss Plaintiffs’ Mandamus and APA claims 19 with prejudice, and dismiss Plaintiffs’ FOIA claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 13). On

20 1 This case is assigned to a Magistrate Judge. However, not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the matter is before this Court pursuant 21 to General Order 21-25, which states in relevant part:

22 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be 23 appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent 24 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,

25 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court 27 Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee 1 March 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed Objections (Doc. 14) to the R&R, the First Amended 2 Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 15), and the second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 3 (Doc 16). Due to Plaintiffs’ FAC, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is now moot. 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW 5 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 6 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 7 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 8 of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written 9 objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a 10 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 11 the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 12 appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a 13 Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of 14 finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 15 DISCUSSION 16 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Application to 17 Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismiss Plaintiffs’ Mandamus and APA claims with prejudice, 18 and dismiss Plaintiffs’ FOIA claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 13 at 3-8). After the 19 Magistrate Judge filed the R&R, on March 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the First Amendment 20 Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 15) and a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 (Doc 16). 22 A plaintiff has “the right to amend his complaint” without leave from the Court any 23 time before a “responsive pleading [is] filed or within twenty days after service of the 24 pleading if no response was permitted and the case [is] not on the trial calendar.” Ramirez 25 v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ. 26 P. 15(a)(1). A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and the Court 27 treats the original as nonexistent. Id.; see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 28 Cir. 1992). 1 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and 2|| noting that Plaintiffs’ FAC was filed as a matter of course, the Court hereby declines 3|| to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R because it is now moot. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro 5 || should be dismissed from this action. 6 Plaintiffs Rene Ortiz, Maria Del Socorro Ortiz, and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro 7|| initiated this action, yet the record reflects that only Plaintiff Rene Ortiz has signed the 8 || pleadings. (See Docs. 1; 2; 15; 16). When an unrepresented party files a motion or other || document on behalf of another unrepresented litigant, each unrepresented litigant must sign |) each document. See Fed. P. Civ. P. 11(a). This requirement exists because generally an |) unrepresented litigant cannot litigate on behalf of others, as “the privilege to represent || oneself” is personal “and does not extend to other parties or entities.” Simon v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see also 28 14], U.S.C. § 1654. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria 15 || Dolores Ochoa Castro from this action. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 18 IT IS ORDERED finding that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate || Judge is moot. (Doc. 13). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro without prejudice. (Doc. 15). 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Plaintiffs 23 || Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro in this matter. 24 Dated this 21st day of April, 2026. 25 Legge. dais.) □□ 26 Stephen M. McNamee 7 Senior United States District Judge 28

-3-