ZMH v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff is ordered to respond in writing to explain why this case should not be dismissed. Plaintiffs response is due by 10/16/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/3/19. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ZMH,

Case No. 19-cv-03739-DMR
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

12

Pro se minor Plaintiff ZMH filed a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis

13

(“IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 2.] The case was filed by his “next friend,” Regional Advocacy Group.

14

On September 25, 2019, the court issued an order to show cause. [Docket No. 7.] The order

15

explained that a “next friend” who is “neither an attorney nor represented by one may not bring a

16

lawsuit on behalf of minor or incompetent plaintiffs.” Roe v. Suter, 165 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 1998)

17

(dismissing a complaint brought by a non-attorney “next friend” of minor plaintiffs).

18

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint Patrina Harrison, his mother, to

19

serve as his guardian ad litem. [Docket No. 11.] Plaintiff appears to argue that he may be

20

represented pro se by a guardian ad litem. This is incorrect. While a guardian ad litem must be

21

appointed to represent a minor’s interests if the minor is otherwise unrepresented, Fed. R. Civ. P.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17(c)(2), the guardian ad litem does not serve as counsel for a pro se minor. In other words, a minor
with a guardian ad litem must still retain a lawyer. Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877
(9th Cir. 1997) (holding that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child
without retaining a lawyer”); Jianjun Xie v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., No. 12-cv-02950-CRB,
2013 WL 812425, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2013) (holding that the plaintiffs could not bring any
claims on behalf of their daughter without licensed counsel); Van Kim Lai v. Vanhart, No. 09-cv05364-JW, 2010 WL 11586756, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2010) (“The fact that a minor may be

1

represented by a guardian ad litem does not alter the principle embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1654 that a

2

non-attorney is not allowed to represent another individual in federal court litigation without the

3

assistance of counsel.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

4

Because Plaintiff is a minor, his claims may only proceed if he is represented by qualified

5

counsel. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to respond in writing to explain why this case

6

should not be dismissed. Plaintiff’s response is due by October 16, 2019.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2019
______________________________________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2