Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01699-12/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 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 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. An order to show cause was issued 

on April 18, 2024, asking plaintiffs to address these concerns. ECF No. 57. Plaintiffs did not 

respond. 

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 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 60 Filed 05/21/24 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 

27 

28 

2 

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 

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. To date, no attorney has entered the case to represent the minor plaintiffs. Accordingly, 

they must be removed from the 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. Pursuant to 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. Because it does not appear to the undersigned that Thao has 

been served, he should be dismissed from this case without prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that (1) the minor 

plaintiffs AIMS and DAYS be terminated as plaintiffs this case, and (2) defendant Tyler Thao be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 60 Filed 05/21/24 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 

27 

28 

3 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 20, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC Document 60 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 3