Hansen et al v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 45

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order. Defendants motions to dismiss and motion to strike (Doc. Nos. 10 , 25 ) are denied as moot. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 12/06/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 RICHARD MARK HANSEN; S.H., a minor, 15 16 17 18 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs, 13 14 Case No. 18cv0689-JAH (MDD) v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY; SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 Pending before the Court are Defendant San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) 22 and Defendant County of San Diego’s (“County of San Diego”) motions to dismiss 23 pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. Nos. 10, 25. 24 SDPD also filed a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure. Doc. No. 10. The motions are fully briefed. Plaintiff Richard Mark Hansen 26 (“Plaintiff”) filed a response in opposition to the County of San Diego’s motion to dismiss. 27 Doc. No. 38. After careful review of the pleadings, and for the reasons set forth below, the 28 Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 1 18cv0689-JAH (MDD) 1 BACKGROUND 2 On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants. Doc. No. 1. 3 Plaintiff is appearing pro se. Id. In his complaint, Plaintiff lists S.H., his daughter and 4 minor, as a co-plaintiff and also as “a Minor on behalf of Hansen.” Id. at pg. 1. On May 5 3, 2018, SDPD filed its motion to dismiss and motion to strike portions of the complaint. 6 Doc. No. 10. The County of San Diego filed its motion to dismiss on June 22, 2018. Doc. 7 No. 25. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to The County of San Diego’s motion on 8 August 7, 2018. Doc. No. 38. SDPD’s motions remain unopposed. 9 DISCUSSION 10 A minor lacks capacity to bring suit unless accompanied by a representative or court- 11 appointed guardian ad litem. Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c). A minor also cannot bring suit on behalf 12 of another. Id. Based upon the filings, the Court infers that S.H. does not have a 13 representative or court-appointed guardian ad litem. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that “a 14 parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a 15 lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiff 16 is pro se and not represented by counsel. Plaintiff cannot bring this action on behalf of 17 S.H., and S.H. cannot bring this action “on behalf of [Plaintiff].” Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c). In addition, based on the manner in which Plaintiff’s complaint is pled, it is difficult 18 19 to determine which claims Plaintiff Hansen is bringing against Defendants. 20 complaint, Plaintiff Hansen begins each cause of action by asserting: “Plaintiffs re-allege 21 and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.” 22 Doc. No. 1 at pgs. 11-21. Plaintiff Hansen also indicates that both he and S.H. seek the 23 same prayer for relief. Id. at pg. 22. Based upon this review, the Court finds that Plaintiff 24 Hansen’s claims cannot be adequately distinguished from S.H.’s grievances. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // In the 2 18cv0689-JAH (MDD) 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without 3 prejudice. To the extent that Plaintiff is able to cure the noted deficiencies, Plaintiff may 4 file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order. Defendants’ motions to dismiss 5 and motion to strike (Doc. Nos. 10, 25) are DENIED as moot. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 DATED: December 6, 2018 9 10 11 _________________________________ JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 18cv0689-JAH (MDD)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?