1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZMH, Case No. 19-cv-03739-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 WELLS FARGO BANK, 11 Defendant.

12 Pro se minor Plaintiff ZMH filed a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (“IFP”). [Docket Nos. 1, 2.] The case was filed by his “next friend,” Regional Advocacy Group. 14 On September 25, 2019, the court issued an order to show cause. [Docket No. 7.] The order 15 explained that a “next friend” who is “neither an attorney nor represented by one may not bring a 16 lawsuit on behalf of minor or incompetent plaintiffs.” Roe v. Suter,

(9th Cir. 1998) 17 (dismissing a complaint brought by a non-attorney “next friend” of minor plaintiffs). 18 On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint Patrina Harrison, his mother, to 19 serve as his guardian ad litem. [Docket No. 11.] Plaintiff appears to argue that he may be represented pro se by a guardian ad litem. This is incorrect. While a guardian ad litem must be 20 appointed to represent a minor’s interests if the minor is otherwise unrepresented, Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 17(c)(2), the guardian ad litem does not serve as counsel for a pro se minor. In other words, a minor 22 with a guardian ad litem must still retain a lawyer. Johns v. Cty. of San Diego,

, 877 23 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child 24 without retaining a lawyer”); Jianjun Xie v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., No. 12-cv-02950-CRB, 25

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2013) (holding that the plaintiffs could not bring any 26 claims on behalf of their daughter without licensed counsel); Van Kim Lai v. Vanhart, No. 09-cv- 27 1 represented by a guardian ad litem does not alter the principle embodied in

that a 2 || non-attorney is not allowed to represent another individual in federal court litigation without the 3 assistance of counsel.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). 4 Because Plaintiff is a minor, his claims may only proceed if he is represented by qualified 5 counsel. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to respond in writing to explain why this case 6 || Should not be dismissed. Plaintiff’s response is due by October 16, 2019. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: October 3, 2019 11 DONNA M. RYU a 12 United States Magistrate Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28