Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS and 

DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND 

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01699 DJC AC PS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se, and the matter was accordingly referred to 

the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). The operative complaint is the Third Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 11), filed November 15, 2022. See ECF No. 36. Portions of this complaint 

have been dismissed, while others remain. Id. The undersigned has identified two remaining 

problems with the status of some of the parties in this case. 

A. The Minor Children Must be Removed as Plaintiffs 

 The operative complaint identifies four plaintiffs: David Tyrone Samuel, Sydney Brooke 

Roberts, and two minor children: “AIMS” and “DAYS.” ECF No. 36 at 9. Although the initial 

screening order in this case informed the adult plaintiffs that as pro se plaintiffs, they can 

represent only themselves (ECF No. 3 at 4), and later Findings and Recommendations identify 

plaintiffs as “two adult members of the same household,” (ECF No. 36 at 2), the minor children 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 57 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

were never removed as plaintiffs in this action. “A pro se plaintiff can only ‘prosecute his own 

action in propria persona,’ and ‘has no authority to prosecute an action in federal court on behalf 

of others.’” United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, 871 F.3d 791, 

800 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 

(9th Cir. 2007)). The Ninth Circuit has made clear “that a parent or guardian cannot bring an 

action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 

F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, plaintiffs Samuel and Roberts cannot represent AIMS and 

DAYS, and unless an attorney is retained for the minors, the minors cannot be plaintiffs in this 

case. 

 B. Defendant Tyler Thao Has Not Been Served 

 There is no indication on the record that defendant Tyler Thao has been served in this 

case, even though the operative complaint was filed over 18 months ago on November 15, 2022. 

ECF No. 11. Per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to complete service within 90 days 

may result in dismissal of a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The deadline for service has long 

since passed. Plaintiff Samuel appeared at a status conference in this case on April 17, 2024, and 

indicated that he was willing to dismiss defendant Thao without prejudice. Plaintiff Roberts has 

not spoken on the issue. 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs must show cause 

in writing within 14 days why (1) the minor plaintiffs AIMS and DAYS should not be terminated 

from this case, and (2) why defendant Tyler Thao should not be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure of service. If plaintiffs fail to respond, the undersigned will recommend that defendant 

Thao be dismissed without prejudice, and that the minors DAYS and AIMS be terminated 

plaintiffs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 17, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 57 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 2