Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MONIQUE KRISTEN DIOSDADO, on No. 25-299 behalf of S. D., D.C. No. 8:24-cv-02490-FLA-KES Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Monique Kristen Diosdado appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to represent her minor child in this action. We review de novo.

Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s order denying Diosdado’s motion. See Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that under this circuit’s binding precedent, a non-attorney parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer), cert. denied, 145 S.

Ct. 2701 (2025); see also Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2019) (a district court order may be considered final for purposes of appellate jurisdiction where its result puts the appellant “effectively out of court”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-299