1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kenneth Sachs, No. CV-24-01932-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Kenneth Sachs appears to remain “distraught about a family court action 16 that occurred in Maricopa County Superior Court and has filed [numerous] complaints— 17 including this one—against individuals who were somehow involved in that family court 18 decision.” Sachs v. Bergin, 2022 WL 1747809, *1 (D. Ariz. 2022). This time, Sachs 19 purports to appear, pro se, as the “next friend” of his daughter, Jane Doe. (Docs. 1, 9.) He 20 cannot do so. Complot v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2023 WL 8234271, *3 (D. Ariz. 2023) 21 (“[I]n an action in which the sole plaintiff is incapacitated and cannot proceed pro se, the 22 plaintiff must be represented by competent counsel, or alternatively, the action must be 23 dismissed without prejudice.”). Moreover, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the asserted 24 claims, which attack a state court judgment and are, at any rate, frivolous. Sachs v. Sachs, 25 2021 WL 3190728, *3 (D. Ariz. 2021) (“Where an action asserts an impermissible 26 collateral attack, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action.”); Bergin, 27 2022 WL 1747809 (dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Sachs v. Branton, 28 2023 WL 5346044, *1 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Sachs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a 1 || plausible claim. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.”). 3 Defendants have filed a motion asserting many grounds for dismissal, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 14.) Subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold 5 || determination, and therefore the Court dismisses on that basis, despite the likely merit of || Defendants’ other arguments. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted. This || action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to seal (Doc. 26) and motion 11 |} to appoint counsel (Doc. 29) are denied as moot. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and 13 || terminate this action. 14 Dated this 18th day of October, 2024. 15 16 Lm ae” 4 } “tb OC — Dominic W, Lanza 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-