Iman Yacoub v. Child Protective Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint that would add her spouse and minor children as plaintiffs. The court denied the motion, holding that a pro se litigant cannot represent others, and provided instructions for filing a compliant amended complaint on her own behalf.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for leave to file amended complaint to add spouse and minor children as plaintiffs is denied.“The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to add her spouse and four minor children as plaintiffs because as a pro se plaintiff, she may not represent or file documents on behalf of anyone else.” | agree with court The decision is legally correct. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a pro se litigant is not an attorney and therefore lacks the authority to represent others, including family members. The court correctly applied this rule to deny the addition of the spouse and children as plaintiffs in the same action filed by the pro se litigant. |
Motion to 'accept the attached Amended Complaint' is denied.“The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion to “accept the attached Amended Complaint.”” | agree with court The order denies the motion to accept the attached complaint, likely because it failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) as outlined in the subsequent paragraph (e.g., containing miscellaneous documents, not being complete in itself). While the specific defect is not explicitly detailed in the denial sentence, the subsequent guidance implies the attached document was procedurally deficient. The denial is a standard exercise of the court's discretion to manage pleadings. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies established Ninth Circuit law regarding the limitations of pro se representation. It accurately cites binding authority to support the denial of adding family members as plaintiffs. The subsequent guidance on Rule 8(a) compliance is appropriate for a pro se litigant. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 IMAN YACOUB, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0509-CAB-BLM Plaintiff, 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. 11 FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, [Doc. No. 20] 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Iman Yacoub, proceeding pro se, has moved for leave to file an amended 17 complaint to (1) add her spouse and four minor children as plaintiffs and (2) “accept the 18 attached Amended Complaint.” [Doc. No. 20 at 1.] For the following reasons, the Court 19 DENIES the motion. 20 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to add her spouse and four minor children as 21 plaintiffs because as a pro se plaintiff, she may not represent or file documents on behalf 22 of anyone else. See Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While 23 a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, ‘[h]e has no authority to appear as an 24 attorney for others than himself.’” (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 25 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)); Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1181 26 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that “a parent may not proceed pro se on her children’s behalf”). 27 The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion to “accept the attached Amended 28 1 miscellaneous documents from other state or agency proceedings. An amended complaint 2 contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction and of 3 || Plaintiff's claim(s) showing that she is entitled to relief, as well as the demand for relief. 4 ||Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The amended complaint must be complete in itself and must contain 5 || copies of all exhibits referred to within the pleading without reference to previously filed 6 ||complaints. If Plaintiff seeks again to file an amended complaint, the Court encourages 7 || the use of this District’s form Pro Se Complaint, which is available on the District’s website 8 which the Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of with this Order. 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: August 5, 2026 OB Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- La Dell Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School 21-55956 · 2024-08-07