1 2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JOYCE MANSUETO, by and through her Case No. 25-cv-01859-BAS-VET 10 next friend and brother, Robert F. Mansueto, ORDER: 11 Plaintiff, (1) DENYING THE EX PARTE 12 APPLICATION FOR TRO AND v. 13 RELATED RELIEF (ECF No. SUSAN BROWN and VILLA 23); 14 BERNARDO OPCO, LLC, d/b/a, Villa 15 Bernardo Care Facility, (2) DENYING THE EX PARTE MOTION TO VACATE 16 Defendants. DISMISSAL, REOPEN CASE, 17 APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AND ISSUE 18 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 19 ORDER (ECF No. 24);

20 (3) DENYING MOTION FOR 21 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 (ECF No. 26); AND 23 (4) DENYING THE NOTICE OF 24 SUPPLEMENTAL 25 AUTHORITY AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE 26 CONSIDERATION (ECF No. 27 28)

28 1 Presently before the Court are: (1) the Emergency Ex Parte Application for TRO and 2 Related Relief (ECF No. 23) (“Ex Parte TRO Application”); (2) the Ex Parte Motion to 3 Vacate Dismissal, Reopen Case, Appoint Guardian Ad Litem, Appoint Counsel, and Issue 4 Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 24) (“Ex Parte Motion”); (3) Motion for Leave to 5 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 26); and (4) Notice of Supplemental Authority and 6 Request for Immediate Consideration (ECF No. 28). For the reasons set forth below, the 7 Court DENIES these motions. The case shall remain closed. Further, the Court directs 8 the Clerk of Court to accept no further documents for filing in this matter, except a timely- 9 filed Notice of Appeal. 10 I. BACKGROUND 11 Plaintiff Joyce Mansueto, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing the 12 Complaint “by and through her next friend and brother, Robert F. Mansueto.” (ECF No. 1.) 13 Plaintiff is a disabled adult residing in a care facility in California, Villa Bernardo OPCO, 14 LLC. (ECF Nos. 22 ¶ 1, 24-2 at 27–29.) The deceased parents of Joyce and Robert 15 Mansueto created a trust for their three surviving children: Joyce, Robert, and Susan 16 Brown. (ECF No. 1-3 at 19.) Defendant Brown currently serves as the conservator of 17 Joyce Mansueto and her estate, as well as the trustee of Joyce Mansueto’s special needs 18 trust. (Id. at 32.) The Complaint names as Defendants: Susan Brown, in both her individual 19 and official capacities as court-appointed conservator of Plaintiff and her estate; Villa 20 Bernardo OPCO, LLC, doing business as Villa Bernardo Care Facility (“Villa Bernardo”); 21 and Does 1 through 100. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 7–10.) 22 The Court dismissed the action without prejudice on August 19, 2025, concluding 23 in part that “Plaintiff may not proceed pro se through another person, has failed to comply 24 with the Court’s prior [order to show cause], has failed to state a claim upon which relief 25 can be granted, and has not established personal jurisdiction over the habeas claim.” (ECF 26 No. 20 at 11.) 27 Plaintiff Joyce Mansueto then—again “by and through her next friend and brother, 28 Robert F. Mansueto”—filed the Ex Parte TRO Application (ECF No. 23) and the Ex Parte 1 Motion (ECF No. 24) six days later on August 25, 2025. As part of efforts to reopen the 2 case, a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 26) and a Notice of 3 Supplemental Authority and Request for Immediate Consideration (ECF No. 28) were also 4 filed. The Court considers these motions, and the allegations contained therein, in the 5 present Order. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Proceeding Pro Se through Robert Mansueto 8 As this Court previously stated when first dismissing this action, “the privilege to 9 represent oneself pro se…is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or 10 entities.” (See ECF No. 20 at 3:17–20 (quoting Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,

, 11 664 (9th Cir. 2008)).) The motions filed after the Court’s first dismissal are, again, filed 12 by Plaintiff Joyce Mansueto “by and through her next friend and brother, Robert F. 13 Mansueto.” Because Plaintiff Joyce Mansueto may not proceed pro se through Robert 14 Mansueto—who again, is not a licensed attorney—this procedural defect alone constitutes 15 a sufficient basis for maintaining the dismissal of the action and all pending motions. (See 16 ECF No. 20 at 4:9–11.) 17 B. Ex Parte TRO Application (ECF No. 23) and Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 18 24) 19 1. Appointment of Robert Mansueto as Guardian Ad Litem 20 The Ex Parte Motion alleges that Robert Mansueto should be the guardian ad litem 21 because he has “cared for her for decades, has no adverse interest, and qualifies under 22 Whitmore v. Arkansas,

(1990)” pursuant to Rule 17(c). (ECF No. 24 at 4.) 23 Even if Robert Mansueto were appointed Plaintiff Joyce Mansueto’s guardian ad litem, the 24 case cannot proceed without a licensed attorney. For example, in Harris v. County of San 25 Diego, another judge within this District held that a mother—who was appointed her minor 26 children’s guardian ad litem—could not bring a pro se lawsuit on their behalf without an 27 attorney. Harris v. County. of San Diego, No. 18-CV-00924-BTM-JLB,

2995820, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2019) (“While a litigant in federal court has the right to 1 act as her own counsel…she ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others.’” (citing 2 Johns v. County of San Diego,

, 877 (9th Cir. 1997))). This Court further 3 finds that, Robert Mansueto cannot proceed on behalf of Joyce Mansueto to request the 4 Court to appoint him to be her guardian ad litem. Though the Court may appoint a guardian 5 ad litem sua sponte on the condition that the appointee secures counsel within a specified 6 period of time, the Court finds no basis to do so here. See, e.g., Johns v. County. of San 7 Diego,

, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). 8 2. Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel pursuant to

1915(e)(1) 10 Further, even if Robert Mansueto could proceed pro se on behalf of Joyce Mansueto 11 to request pro bono counsel from the Court (see ECF Nos. 23 at 1, 24 at 4–5), there is no 12 constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th 13 Cir. 2009); Lassiter v. Dep’t. of Social Servs.,

, 26–27 (1981). While 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(e)(1) grants the district court limited discretion to “request” that an attorney 15 represent an indigent civil litigant, this discretion may be exercised only under “exceptional 16 circumstances”—meaning a demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of the 17 presented claims and legal complexity warranting referral to pro bono counsel. Agyeman 18 v. Corr. Corp. of America,

, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). The case has already been 19 dismissed (ECF No. 20); and the Ex Parte Motion has not pled any extraordinary 20 circumstances that would change the Court’s prior analysis of the merits of the case and 21 reopen it. In sum, the papers do not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would 22 warrant referral to potential pro bono counsel pursuant to

(e)(1). See 23 Palmer,

. 24 3. Vacatur of Dismissal and Reopening of the Case 25 Even if Joyce Mansueto could proceed through Robert Mansueto and obtain pro 26 bono counsel, none of the papers allege circumstances warranting reopening the case. 27 Citing Rule 60(b), the Ex Parte Motion states that “[r]elief is appropriate to prevent 28 manifest injustice and to ensure compliance with Rule 17(c)(2).” (ECF No. 24 at 4.) 1 Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment or an order based 2 on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 3 evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s 4 decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 5 been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 6 Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may grant relief “whenever such action is appropriate 7 to accomplish justice,” but only for reasons not covered by the five specified grounds in 8 Rule 60(b). See Klapprott v. United States,

, 614–15 (1949); see also United 9 States v. State of Washington,

(9th Cir. 1996). Rule 60(b)(6) is to be 10 “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized 11 only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to 12 prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Ruiz v. McGuire, No. 16-CV-0388-AJB-BLM, 13

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2017) (citing Harvest v. Castro,

, 14 749 (9th Cir. 2008)). 15 Given that the only reason the Ex Parte Motion cites in requesting the Court to vacate 16 the dismissal and reopen the case as being that “relief is appropriate to prevent manifest 17 injustice,” Rule 60(b)(6) seems to be the only prong that is applicable here. Here, none of 18 the papers at issue present any “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to reopen the case 19 under Rule 60(b) (see ECF Nos. 23 at 1, 24 at 4)—including any intervening legal changes 20 that would now permit Robert Mansueto to proceed pro se on behalf of Joyce Mansueto. 21 * * * 22 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES the Ex Parte TRO Application (ECF No. 23 23) and the Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 24). 24 C. Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 26) 25 The Court also denies the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 26 26) because Joyce Mansueto cannot proceed through Robert Mansueto without legal 27 counsel. Because Robert Mansueto is not a licensed attorney and because non-lawyers do 28 not have the authority to represent anyone else pro se in court, the Court DENIES the 1 || Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 26). Cf Spears v. Spears, No. 2 || 2:21-cv-1472-TLN-CKD PS,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2021) (denying 3 || plaintiff's IFP application, in part, because a non-lawyer plaintiff attempted to represent 4 || other named plaintiffs in court). 5 D. Notice of Supplemental Authority and Request for Immediate 6 Consideration (ECF No. 28) and Ex Parte TRO Application (ECF No. 23) 7 Similarly, Joyce Mansueto cannot proceed pro se through Robert Mansueto to 8 ||request a temporary restraining order, or for any other pleadings. Cf Carroll v. Vallejo 9 || Police Dep’t, No. 1:23-CV-00004-GSA-PC,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 10 |}2023) (denying a non-lawyer plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order that 11 |}asserted claims on behalf of other plaintiffs). Thus, the Court DENIES the Notice of 12 || Supplemental Authority and Request for Immediate Consideration (ECF No. 28). The fact 13 non-lawyers cannot represent the interests of others to request a TRO 1s another reason 14 || supporting the Court’s decision to also DENY the Ex Parte TRO Application (ECF No. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES: (1) the Emergency Ex Parte 18 || Application for TRO and Related Relief (ECF No. 23); (2) the Ex Parte Motion to Vacate 19 Dismissal, Reopen Case, Appoint Guardian Ad Litem, Appoint Counsel, and Issue 20 || Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 24); (3) the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 21 ||Pauperis (ECF No. 26); and (4) the Notice of Supplemental Authority and Request for 22 || Immediate Consideration (ECF No. 28). The case shall remain closed. Further, the Court 23 || directs the Clerk of Court to accept no further documents for filing in this matter, except a 24 || timely-filed Notice of Appeal. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ~ 27 || DATED: October 7, 2025 (yi. (Dihan 28 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court _f_