Z. et al v. THE GATEWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Filing 24

ORDER re 18 Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 23 ) to the SCO fails to demonstrate why this Court should disregard the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's conclusion that a parent may not bring claims, pro se, on be half of his or her minor child. Plaintiff also has failed to show cause why she should be referred to in this case by her initials, as opposed to her name. Thus, the Court hereby DISMISSES all claims purportedly asserted by Plaintiff's minor ch ild, "A.Z."; A.Z. has been terminated as a party; and the Clerk shall amend the caption to read: "Sharon Zilberman, Plaintiff, v. The Gateway School District, et al., Defendants." Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/9/13. (dcd) Staff note: a copy of this Order has been sent today, via First-Class U.S. Mail, to Plaintiff's address of record.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
A.Z., a minor, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE GATEWAY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-720
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 23) to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 18) fails to demonstrate
why this Court should disregard the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s conclusion that a
parent may not bring claims, pro se, on behalf of his or her minor child. See Woodruff v.
Hamilton Twp. Public Sch., 305 Fed. Appx. 833, 836, 2009 WL 105750, *2 (3d Cir. Jan. 15,
2009) (parent’s rights under IDEA “do[] not translate into a broad right to pursue any statutory or
common law claims on a child’s behalf”) (citation omitted). Simply put, “[w]ith the exception of
an IDEA action on their own behalf, [parents] may not represent [their children, pro se,] in the
federal courts in this [C]ircuit.” Id.
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court hereby DISMISSES all claims purportedly
asserted by Plaintiff’s minor child, “A.Z.,” and he will be terminated as a party to this lawsuit.
As the Court already has advised, however, the instant ruling has no bearing on Plaintiff’s
assertion of IDEA rights on her own behalf. See Order dated Nov. 26, 2013 (Doc. 20) at 1
(under Winkelman, parents enjoy independent rights under IDEA, and they are entitled to
prosecute those rights pro se).

Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to show cause why she should be referred to in this case
by her initials, as opposed to her name. Although protecting the identity of a minor child is
appropriate under Local Rule 5.2.D.2, those protections do not extend to Plaintiff, an adult.1
Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff “A.Z.” will be removed from the docket, and the
Clerk shall amend the caption to read: “Sharon Zilberman, Plaintiff, v. The Gateway School
District, et al., Defendants.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 9, 2013

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Sharon Zilberman
187 Kelvington Drive
Monroeville, PA 15146
cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s first and last name already appear in the record, and it
was Plaintiff herself who put them there (albeit, by necessity). See Compl. (Doc. 1-1)
at signature line and Doc. 1-2 (Civil Cover Sheet) (identifying Plaintiff’s name).
1

2