Rockwell v. Tuolumne County, California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLAN THOMAS ROCKWELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00392-JLT-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DENYING MOTION IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 8, 35) 16 17 Plaintiff Allan Thomas Rockwell (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action against 18 Tuolumne County, Michael Choate, Denise Choate, and Melissa Brouhard. (See ECF No. 1.) 19 The First Amended Complaint indicates that this action is brought by Plaintiff and by 20 G.A.R., a minor, proceeding pro se. (See ECF No. 5.) On May 4, 2022, the Court issued an order 21 for Plaintiff to show cause why G.A.R.’s claims should not be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF 22 No. 8) Plaintiff was directed to file a written response within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) 23 On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the May 4, 2022 order to show cause, along 24 with a motion for an extension of time to file a further response. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) Plaintiff’s 25 response explained that he was searching for counsel for G.A.R. and himself. (ECF No. 14.) And 26 he stated that if he could not obtain counsel, “he will use FRCP 17 Next Friend rule to obtain 27 proper representation to enter an appearance for G.A.R.” (Id.) 28 On May 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension to June 30, 2022, to file a 1 further response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 17). However, the Court reiterated the 2 discussion in the order to show cause—that G.A.R. must be represented by counsel if this action 3 is to proceed on his or her behalf. (Id. at 2); see Garcia v. City of Fresno, 2017 WL 6383814, at 4 *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017) (“It is established that a non-attorney parent must be represented by 5 counsel in bringing an action on behalf of the child.”). 6 This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to grant him permission to 7 represent minor G.A.R. or to grant him an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause 8 and filings from Defendants objecting to him representing the minor child. (ECF No. 35). As for 9 the request to represent G.A.R., the Court reiterates once again that Plaintiff cannot pursue a 10 claim on behalf minor G.A.R. absent counsel. Accordingly, the Court will not permit Plaintiff to 11 proceed pro se and pursue a claim on behalf of G.A.R., nor will the Court grant Plaintiff an 12 extension to file a reply to Defendants’ objections to him pursuing a claim on behalf of G.A.R. 13 (See ECF Nos. 20-21). 14 As for the request for an extension of time, Plaintiff states that he has been searching for 15 an attorney to represent him and G.A.R. but has thus far been able to secure an attorney. He asks 16 for additional time, until July 21, 2022, to respond to the order to show cause. Given that Plaintiff 17 represents that he is currently searching for counsel to represent him and G.A.R., the Court will 18 grant Plaintiff one final extension to respond to the order to show cause. If counsel enters an 19 appearance on behalf of G.A.R. by this deadline, the Court will vacate the order to show cause. If 20 there is no such appearance, the Court will recommend that minor G.A.R.’s claims be dismissed 21 without prejudice. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 35) is granted to the extent that Plaintiff seeks an 24 extension of time to respond to the show cause order and the motion is denied in all 25 other respects. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 1 2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a further response to the May 4, 2022 order to show 2 cause (see ECF No. 8) is extended to July 21, 2022. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5} Dated: _ July 1, 2022 [Jee ey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28