Schaupp v. County of Stanislaus ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLYN SCHAUPP, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00849-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 13 v. AND FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., ORDER DENYING REMAINING MATTERS AS MOOT 15 Defendants. (Docs. 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) 16 17 Carolyn Schaupp, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this action on behalf of herself 18 and minors L.S., D.S., P.I., and J.B. on July 11, 2022. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff did not file a petition to 19 appear guardian ad litem on behalf of minors L.S., D.S., P.I., and J.B., nor did she pay the filing 20 fee, but instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.) Concurrently 21 with the complaint and IFP application, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and motion for 22 permission for electronic case filing, both of which remain pending. (Docs. 3, 4.) The matter 23 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 24 Rule 302. 25 On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s IFP application was denied without prejudice and she was 26 ordered to pay the filing fee or submit a long form IFP application.1 On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff 27 1 Also on July 15, 2022, the District Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for TRO. (Doc. 7.) Notably, in denying the TRO, the Court identified a prior similar action filed by Plaintiff on August 28, 2020, Schaupp v. County of 28 Stanislaus (Schaupp I), No. 1:20-cv-01221-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. 2020), and cautioned Plaintiff that she may not 1 submitted a filing titled “Request for Joinder Under FRCP 19; Motion for Attorney Fees and 2 Cost,” which included multiple motions: (1) a motion to join minor P.I. in this action as a Plaintiff 3 (Doc. 9 at 1–2); (2) an application for a warrant of arrest in rem (id. at 4–6); (3) a long form IFP 4 application filed by Plaintiff on her own behalf (id. at 7–11); (4) a long form IFP application filed 5 by Plaintiff on behalf of minor P.I. (id. at 12–16); (5) a long form IFP application filed by 6 Plaintiff on behalf of minor L.S. (id. at 17–21); (6) a long form IFP application filed by Plaintiff 7 on behalf of minor J.B. (id. at 22–26); and (7) a long form IFP application filed by Plaintiff on 8 behalf of minor D.S. (id. at 27–31). On August 2, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and 9 recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9 at 7–11), 10 order Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action, and deny 11 without prejudice the applications to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff on behalf of 12 minors P.I. (Doc. 9 at 12–16), L.S. (Doc. 9 at 17–21), J.B. (Doc. 9 at 22–26), and D.S. (Doc. 9 at 13 27–31). Thereafter, in addition to filing objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and 14 recommendations (Doc. 11), Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint guardian ad litem (Doc. 12), 15 motion to stay and referral to VDRP or ADR for early mediation (Doc. 13), and ADA disability 16 access litigation: application for stay and early mediation (Doc. 14), which currently remain 17 pending. 18 On September 2, 2022, the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 19 recommendations in full, denied all applications to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered 20 Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full within thirty days or face dismissal. (Doc. 15.) The 21 deadline to pay the filing fee has passed and Plaintiff has neither paid the fee nor requested 22 additional time to do so. 23 24 represent her minor children in this action pro se. (Doc. 7 at 1 n.1 (quoting Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“a nonattorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his 25 or her child. The choice to appear pro se is not a true choice for minors who under state law cannot determine their own legal actions.”)).) The Court also indicated it will only consider the claims raised in this action as they pertain to Plaintiff. (Id. citing Laycook v. Cnty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-cv-01263-LJO-SAB, 2018 WL 4998136, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 26 Oct. 15, 2018) (“Plaintiff cannot bring this action to assert the rights of his children without retaining counsel. The Court shall therefore only consider the claims raised in this action as they pertain to Plaintiff.”)).) This magistrate 27 judge, in denying Plaintiff’s initial IFP application, also expressed doubt as to Plaintiff’s ability to bring the instant action on behalf of her children, noting the complaint was only signed on behalf of Carolyn Schaupp, and appears to 28 allege Ms. Schaupp does not currently have custody over her children. (Doc. 8 at 1 n.2.) 1 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure 3 to pay the filing fee for this action. 4 2. Plaintiffs pending motions (Docs. 3, 4, 12, 13, 14) are DENIED as moot. 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 14, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28