Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00874/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00874-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGIANA PRESKAR, et al., 

Plaintiffs, CIV S-07-0874 GEB EFB PS 

vs.

THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

__________________________________/

This action, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned by

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiffs have filed a request that the court rule on whether this action may be

maintained as a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 23. There

are approximately 160 plaintiffs in this action, none of whom are represented by counsel. Two

plaintiffs, Georgiana Preskar and Teri Lawrence, appear to be representing the others in terms of

drafting pleadings, filing requests, and accepting service of documents filed by defendants. All

plaintiffs, including Preskar and Lawrence, are admonished that only licensed attorneys admitted

to practice before this court may represent parties other than themselves. Accordingly, each

plaintiff herein must represent herself or himself and may not be represented by another plaintiff.

////

Case 2:07-cv-00874-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Plaintiffs’ request to maintain the present suit as a class action is denied. All of the

plaintiffs in this case have appeared pro se, and cannot therefore represent the interests of a class. 

See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). The court cannot allow a purported

class action to proceed without counsel. Chesney v. Seifert, 70 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1995). This

action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action and instead will be construed as a civil

suit brought by plaintiffs individually. Accordingly, on an ongoing basis, any filing that a

plaintiff wishes to join in must be signed by each such plaintiff, or joined by filing a separate

notice of joinder. 

Currently pending before the court are three motions to dismiss calendared for hearing on 

August 15, 2007, and August 29, 2007. Plaintiffs’ oppositions were filed on July 25, 2007. 

Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would not be of

material assistance in determining the pending motions. Accordingly, upon the filing of

plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, to the “California Congress” defendant’s motion to dismiss and the

state and federal defendants’ optional reply briefs, or not later than August 22, 2007,the pending

motions are submitted pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h). 

Finally, the court notes that on July 25, 2007, plaintiffs Preskar and Lawrence filed a

request to amend the complaint “if the court does indeed find plaintiffs’ original complaint

deficient.” Leave to amend is not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), because plaintiffs’ have

not previously amended their complaint and no responsive pleading has yet been filed. Plaintiffs

seem to understand this as they cite this Rule in their request. To the extent plaintiffs mean to

request that the court grant leave to file an amended complaint in the event the motions to

dismiss are granted, the court will address that issue in its findings and recommendations that

will be issued as to the pending motions to dismiss. 

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ request to proceed as a class in this action is denied; 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00874-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. The hearings calendared for August 15, 2007, and August 29, 2007, on defendants’

motions to dismiss are vacated; and,

3. The motions will be submitted without oral argument as specified above.

DATED: July 26, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00874-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3